1951-12-19

Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: I should like to supplement an answer 1 gave yesterday to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) regarding the issue of passports to Canadian soldiers overseas. I find that the identification certificates which are issued to the soldiers are accepted by the countries concerned when they move in formation or on duty, but so far we have not succeeded in making arrangements for them to accept the identification cards when they are on leave. We are continuing to make efforts to secure that acceptance. They have agreed in principle but have not put it into effect.
The question of the charges for passports is being looked into. The number is quite small as I think only in the neighbourhood of fifty have been issued so far. They are issued by our consular staff in Germany.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Are the
troops paid in United States scrip or sterling scrip?


Brooke Claxton: They are paid in scrip which can be used in Germany, but I could not say whether it is United States or sterling scrip. I shall have to look into it.



QUESTIONS


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Caiherwood:: 1.	Is the construction of the Canadian National Railways line to the Lynn Lake area going ahead on schedule?
2.	When will this construction be completed?
3.	What is the total estimated cost of this line?


Mr. Benidickson:: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Estimated date of completion is October 31, 1953.
3.	Estimated cost mentioned in act of parliament as passed on June 20,	1951, was
$14,725,000. Actual final cost will depend upon the trend of costs experienced in railway
construction projects and the urgency of having the line completed before production at the mine is commenced in 1954.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many (a) permanent employees; (b) temporary employees, have been dismissed for cause or removed from their positions in the income tax or corporation tax divisions of the Department of National Revenue in (i) Montreal; (ii) Toronto; (iii) Winnipeg, since January 1, 1950?
2.	How many of such employees had (a) 15 years service or more; (b) 10 to 15 years service; (c) 7 to 10 years service; (d) 3 to 7 years service?


Mr. McCann:: Montreal	Toronto	Winnipeg(i)	(ii)	(iii)1. (a) Permanent	174	42	19(b) Temporary	518	230	242. (a) Permanent	1	Nil	NilTemporary	Nil	Nil	Nil(b) Permanent	16	2	4Temporary	1	Nil	Nil(c) Permanent	53	19	12Temporary	18	2	4(d) Permanent	101	21	2Temporary	340	133	1



MOTOR VEHICLES SEIZED IN TRANSPORTATION OF SMUGGLED CIGARETTES

Mr. Nowlan:: How many motor vehicles have been seized and forfeited during each of the calendar months of 1951, for alleged use of such motor vehicles in the transportation of cigarettes in violation of the Customs Act?


James Joseph McCann: January, 7; February, 5; March, 7; April, 7; May, 5; June, 13; July, 12; August, 15; September, 13; October, 15; November, 17. Total 116.



LEGAL FEES IN PROSECUTION OF MR. WOOD

Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	How much has been expended to date for legal fees and disbursements in (a) trial before a magistrate; (b) appeal to the county court; (g) appeal to the court of appeal, Manitoba, in the prosecution of Mr. Wood; for an alleged1 offence against the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act?
2.	Are any further accounts due, or owing, for legal fees and disbursements? If so, what is the estimated amount due?
3.	What is the amount allegedly due by Mr. Wood originally?

Questions


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	(a) Legal fees and disbursements of unemployment insurance commission counsel, $66.20; costs of defence, nil; (b) Legal fees and disbursements of unemployment insurance commission counsel, $69.60; costs of defence, nil; (c) Legal fees and disbursements of unemployment insurance commission counsel, nil.
2.	Legal fees and disbursements of unemployment insurance commission counsel, estimate not exceeding $250. Costs of defence counsel before all courts claimed at $150
3.	The offence was that the accused had failed to comply with section 74 (3) of the Unemployment Insurance Act. No amount was mentioned in the charge.
The unemployment insurance commission explains as follows:
Mr- Wood, the defendant in the case, operates a real estate and tourist cabin business. Employment in that business is insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The commission has experienced considerable difficulty in obtaining Mr. Wood's co-operation in the matter of making the requisite contributions to the U. I. fund, for and in respect of his employees.
Auditors of the commission have found it necessary to call on Mr. Wood several times and, on four such occasions, found him delinquent. In July, 1947 he was in default in the amount of $111.69; in August, 1948, $16.05; in August, 1949, $17.60; and in July, 1950, $5.76.
In addition to the calls made by the auditors, many letters have been written to him by the commission. Indeed, at the time of the 1949 audit he informed the auditor that he would not obtain insurance books for his employees or pay contributions in respect of an employee who was working as a carpenter. After a specific demand was made upon him to obtain books and insure the carpenter, he complied.
It is the duty of the commission to see that all contributions due to the fund are made. Default or delay in payment creates many problems, one of which is that the employees or former employees of the delinquent employer lose their rights, or part of them, when they become unemployed and seek unemployment insurance benefits. In other words, in such cases the records of the commission do not show all the entitlement of the worker; indeed, in some instances, the worker is unable to show right to any benefits because of the default of the employer. It will therefore be realized how
[Mr. White (Middlesex East) .1
important it is to insist upon and receive full compliance in the matter of payment of contributions.



GRANT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDEN

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has there been announced an intention not to renew in the 1952-53 estimates the grant of $15,000 in aid of the development of the international peace garden in Manitoba?
2.	If so, by whom and when, and why is such grant to be discontinued?
3.	Have protests against discontinuing this grant been received by the government at any time in 1951? If so, from whom?
4.	Is consideration being given to these protests?


Mr. Winters:: 1 and 2. In a letter dated December 13, 1950, the Minister of Resources and Development informed the Hon. D. G. McKenzie, president, International Peace Garden, that provision would be made for a grant of $15,000 in the 1951-52 estimates but that because of the government's heavy defence program and the resulting necessity to curtail other expenditures, it was most unlikely that a grant could be made for the fiscal year 1952-53. In a letter dated October 24, 1951, Mr. McKenzie asked that the grant again be extended, and in reply on November 6, 1951, the Minister of Resources and Development referred to his previous letter of December 13, 1950, and expressed his regrets that because of the reasons stated therein, it would be most difficult to recommend the grant for the fiscal year 1952-53.
3.	Several members of parliament and other citizens have requested that provision again be made for the grant in the estimates for the fiscal year 1952-53.
4.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.



CUSTOMS BUILDING, PEACE GARDEN GATES

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the government received at any time since January 1, 1951, representations for the erection of a new customs building at the peace garden gates on the Manitoba-North Dakota boundary?
2.	If so, is consideration being given to this request?
3.	Has a favourable decision yet been reached?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Matter under consideration.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


Mr. Argue:: 1. What are the names of all persons employed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in Saskatchewan during the first ten months of 1951?

2. What sum of money was paid to each, of these persons as (a) salary or wages; (b) sustenance; (c) mileage; (d) other allowances?



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: On November 12 a question of mine having to do with the number of recruits and the extent of recruiting was passed as an order for return, as indicated on page 903 of Hansard. I made inquiry about this before and I should like to ask that it be expedited so that it can be brought down before the end of the session.


Brooke Claxton: That will certainly be done. I have seen a draft of the answer and I know that it is on the way.



INQUIRY AS TO CANADIANS HELD BY COMMUNISTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he has any information in addition to that which has appeared in the press with respect to Canadian prisoners of war held by the communists in Korea?


Brooke Claxton: I have not. There are five Canadian soldiers who unfortunately are missing but we do not know whether any of them are prisoners of war.


Gordon Graydon: I understand that one man from Hamilton is listed as a prisoner of war in the exchange of information.


Brooke Claxton: That is correct, but we have not had that information officially from Korea as yet. We do not know about any others.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his announcement on Friday last regarding pay increases for the civil service and other government employees. Is consideration being given to an immediate review of the position of prevailing rates employees such as might lead to an increase for them comparable to the increase which is being given to classified civil servants?
Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): My understanding is that these prevailing rates are reviewed yearly. I cannot say from memory when the last review took place but it is a continuing process and the effort is to keep the prevailing rates employees on a par with those in private employment doing the same kind of work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the Prime
Minister would permit me to express the hope that any changes that are made might be effective from the same date, namely, December 1, 1951.



CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The hon. member for Greenwood asked me a series of questions on December 17 about the effect of various government measures upon capital expenditure in Canada. As I said at the time, he is really asking me to read the minds of our businessmen who have not done things they might have done. My answer can only be in the most general terms. In the first place, I do know from personal contact with businessmen that deferred capital cost allowances have influenced investment decisions in a number of cases. But, of course, one cannot make statistical calculations on the basis of that kind of evidence.
It should be borne in mind in trying to assess the effects of the deferment of depreciation that such deferment does not apply generally. There are a number of exemptions set forth in the regulations, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is authorized to issue certificates entitling the taxpayer to current allowances where the properties are being acquired for carrying on certain basic industries listed in the regulations, and where the investment makes a direct contribution to the defence effort. In other words, the policy is selective in character and that is the way it is working.
As a means of getting some general impression of the way the policy is working, I asked the officers of my department to compare the estimates of 1951 capital expenditure with those for 1950. With the permission of the house I should like to put the table on Hansard. It is necessarily a very tentative analysis and is subject to revision when later
2192	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry and more up-to-date information is available. The table is as follows:
Per cent change in the volume of investment, fall estimate 1951 over 1950 Total private and public investment	 + 7
Capital expenditures not subject
to income tax	 + 3
Capital expenditures subject to
income tax	. +11
Capital expenditures eligible for capital cost allowances without certificate of eligibility	 +2
Capital expenditures eligible for capital cost allowances subject to the issuance of a
certificate	of eligibility* 1 . +83
Capital expenditures not eligible for capital cost allowances1	 _ g
1These estimates were made before the recent amendment embodied in order in council P.C. 6384, which enables the Minister of Trade and Commerce to issue certificates for structures under construction as of April 10, 1951, and properties which the taxpayer was obligated to acquire at that date.
The table shows that where capital expenditures are assumed to be eligible for a certificate there is an increase of over 80 per cent in volume between 1950 and 1951, whereas in those cases where the taxpayer is likely to be subject to deferment of allowances, unless he had a commitment to purchase on April 10, 1951, or was in course of construction, there is a decrease of 8 per cent in volume.
I am not suggesting that deferred capital cost allowance, which has been in effect for only eight months, is the main or only reason for these results. That may be due also in part to other government measures to which the hon. member referred, or perhaps to factors which have nothing in particular to do with government policy. All that I can say with any certainty is that the various measures we have taken to curb inflationary pressures seem to be working in the right direction.



REQUEST FOR ENGLISH &quot;HANSARD&quot; INDEX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be harping on any subject matter but as chairman of the debates committee I ask you, sir, to take the necessary steps so that the majority of my colleagues may receive as soon as possible the index for English Hansard of 1950 as well as the one for this session. If those who are supposed to have been working on it have not done a satisfactory job, please see


to it in the interests of all that they are replaced at the earliest possible opportunity by competent people.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I think that kind of question should not be made the occasion of an inferential attack upon the efficiency of those charged with this work. I think every member who has contact with that office appreciates the competence of the debates staff and of those charged with the responsibility for preparing the index. It is a very great task. Apparently what is needed is assistance and not criticism of those already employed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not allowed to discuss it, but my friend as usual is wrong.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am willing to be judged by the correctness of what I have just said.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have had the views of both hon. members. I shall be pleased to look into the question and endeavour to have the index in the hands of members as soon as posible.



UNITED STATES SELECTIVE SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
CANADIANS WORKING IN THE UNITED STATES_____

[Stage Direction]
On (the orders of the day:
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: I should
like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to such other member of the government as it may concern. I regret I have not given notice. Are Canadian citizens working in the United States to be subject to the United States draft law, as reported in the newspapers?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As it happens, I have some information on that subject.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mind reader.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I anticipated a question of this kind.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A crystal ball.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Reports appearing in this morning's press incorrectly indicate that there has been a radical change in United States policy affecting Canadian citizens who reside in Canada but work in the United States. This is not the case. Since the introduction of the selective service act all male persons residing in the United States have been liable to call-up under the United States draft law. Up to June 19 of this year an alien residing in the United States might claim exemption on the ground that he was an alien and exemption would be granted to him under forfeiture of his

right ever thereafter to become a citizen of the United States. By amendment to the selective service act on the date stated this privilege of exemption previously granted to aliens was rescinded.
The specific position with regard to Canadians living in Canada and working in the United States seems to centre about Detroit and Windsor. No person can be admitted to the United States for the purpose of engaging in paid employment in that country unless he is granted an immigration visa. It is not material to this issue where he may happen to sleep. All persons who are admitted to the United States for the purpose of engaging in paid employment are presumed to be "residing in the United States" for the purposes of the selective service act. Therefore there can be no question that under the terms of the United States selective service act Canadians who live in Windsor but work in Detroit under an immigration visa are liable to be called up under the United States selective service act in precisely the same way as United States citizens.


Mr. Coldwell:: What was the effect of our selective service act during the war? Was it not done in consultation between the two governments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, there was consultation during the war in regard to the application in either country of selective service laws of the other. The situation is not quite the same now.


Major James William Coldwell: There has been no consultation with respect to this matter between the two governments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that.


Major James William Coldwell: Since this seems to be a procedure taken unilaterally with regard to Canadian citizens, should not some representation be made to the United States government on the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I doubt whether this procedure was taken unilaterally regarding Canada. I am sure it applies to all living in the United States, and not only to Canadians. I am not sure whether we have or have not made representations on the subject, but I shall be glad to look into that.


Major James William Coldwell: I mean unilateral action on the part of the United States with respect to Canada and not with respect to other nations.


Mr. Rowe:: I should like to ask the minister whether students and short-term employees cannot go to the United States unless they take out immigration papers. A number of students have taken positions in, we will
Inquiries of the Ministry say, Washington, and other places, in their university years. This has been temporary employment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Canadians I have been talking about are those who are working in the United States on immigration visas. The situation would be different in regard to * great many of our students over there.


Gordon Graydon: I take it that my hon. friend from Windsor-


Donald Ferguson Brown: Essex West.


Gordon Graydon: Yes, Essex West. His name is so well known that the name of his constituency is forgotten. In the case of temporary lay-offs in Windsor, where someone goes across for temporary employment in Detroit, would they be subject to the draft law?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Only if they are in the United States on immigration visas. If they are in the United States on immigration visas they are subject to the United States selective service law. Normally, no one can go from Canada to work in the United States, except under immigration visas. There may be exceptions in the case of temporary employment. I am not sure, but I will look into it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Are those persons who are being recruited by the very large recruiting drive now going on by some of the American manufacturers required to have immigration visas before they can work? For instance, Ford is looking for five hundred mechanics in the Toronto area at this time. Do they have to have immigration visas?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand they must have immigration visas if they are working in the United States.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Speaker, some time
ago it was reported that members of the cabinet had proceeded to Washington to negotiate with the Americans the terms under which Canadians could get work in the United States. Has the government 'any information as to what those terms are?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that no cabinet minister went to Washington for that purpose, and no official negotiations were taken to that end.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: I
should like to direct a question to the
2194	HOUSE OF
Inquiries oj the Ministry Minister of Transport. I have not given him notice but I hope he will be as well prepared to answer as the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to know if any consideration has been given to the question of adjusting telegraph and radiotelephone rates between the other provinces and Newfoundland to bring them in line with rates prevailing on this side of the Atlantic.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: That is hardly a question that could be answered without notice. As my hon. friend knows, telephone rates are under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners. I would have to inquire whether or not an application to adjust them has been made to the board. In any event I will have to look into the matter and give an answer later.



EXTRADITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the extradition treaty which has been so much discussed being signed, or is it in process of being negotiated at the present time?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I tabled the treaty after it was signed, and explained to the house that it was not the intention of the government to propose to the house a resolution for ratification until it had been ascertained whether or not it was going to be ratified by the Senate of the United States.


Agar Rodney Adamson: But this house will have an opportunity to debate it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes; this house will have an opportunity to debate it. The document Itself was laid on the table several weeks ago.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BOARD TO PRESCRIBE THE CONSTITUTION AND POWERS OF THE BOARD, ETC.-CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 18, to provide for the establishment of an agricultural products board.


Mr. Charlton:: May we see the amendment?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is just that once a year we make a report to the house on what the activities of the board are.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fulton.
Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monlmor-ency):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to add to what I said yesterday. May I submit to you that, when speaking about the Tory party, in using the word "humbug" I am of course referring to their policy.
So may I say, humbugs, indeed

humbugs m their policy, indeed-when they introduce motions in this house protesting the rising cost of living, and yet object when an opportunity offers to have it brought down.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the hon. member permit a question? May I ask him if he believes that the government ought to introduce direct price controls?


Wilfrid Lacroix: That will improve the situation, and maybe the present bill may well evade other necessary steps; because it is a right step in the direction of slowing down prices which are so much higher right now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the hon. member think that the government ought to introduce price controls, as he has said, and if, as the Prime Minister has said, this measure-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -will not have any effect upon the cost of living-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Eglinton has the right to ask a question, if he has the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


Mr. Fraser:: He had the consent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was asking if the hon. member believes, as he indicated, that the government ought to introduce-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: a system of direct price controls, does he not think it humbug to support a government which is not following that policy?


Wilfrid Lacroix: The government is taking a good step, in the right direction; and I much prefer to evade price controls by the manufacturers themselves-who are defended by your party, right now.

Now, I was just saying: Humbugs in their attitude, indeed, when they introduce motions in this house protesting the rising cost of living and yet object when an opportunity offers to have it brought down.
Humbugs, in their policy, when they advocate price controls and yet object when an opportunity is given them to let people control prices themselves, by giving full scope to free enterprise and free competition.
Humbugs-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Humbug!


Some hon. Members:: Humbug!


Wilfrid Lacroix: Humbugs in their policy, indeed, when the Conservative party clamours for government price control but would leave it in the hands of manufacturers.
And, in answer to my hon. friend's question-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Humbug!


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Humbug!


Wilfrid Lacroix: Humbugs, when they talk of inflation, yet oppose a measure that would check its growth.
Humbugs-


Some hon. Members:: Humbug!


Wilfrid Lacroix: Humbugs, when they talk
of protecting the people against exploitation by big interests, for when they have the occasion of enabling these people to purchase goods and products at reasonable prices, they try to prevent them from doing so, as they have demonstrated during this debate.
The Conservative party may have been able, thus far, to win by-elections, by preaching against the high cost of living. But today it has cut short all its chances of ever winning an election, by showing itself in its true light to the Canadian people.
May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the government on its courageous attitude toward the moneyed interests. It has been shown once again that the Liberal party, although it has not yet reached perfection, is still much nearer the people than the Conservatives.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Humbug.


Wilfrid Lacroix: As far as the Conservative party is concerned, it has demonstrated once again its inability to see where lie the true interests of the great mass of consumers that make up the population of this country.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Humbug.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Moreover, it proves today that its eyes are wide open to those who feed its electoral fund, and only pretends to have one eye turned to the Canadian people.
Combines Investigation Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: Humbug.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is perhaps on the face of it a little bold-


An hon. Member:: Louder.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Thank you. I am glad you are listening.
I think it is perhaps a little odd for one who was not a member of the committee to step into this fight. Indeed, I do feel just a trifle like a camp follower. We had all the front-line troops in action yesterday, or at least some of them, and I hope we shall hear from more of them today. I hope we shall not merely have the speech of the member for Montreal St. James (Mr. Beaudry), who gave such a fine exhibition last night, but short of his vote. At any rate I am going to suggest that camp followers have their uses.
I had a recollection that the battle of Bannockburn was won by camp followers, and I have some evidence to that effect which I hope will be of interest. It is not very flattering to the English, but I hope this may be of interest to the men of Scottish descent and also, because of the ancient alliance, to those of French descent. In those days we all fought against the English. Briefly, this is a description of the outcome of the battle. The final impetus to the rout of the English was given by a historic charge of the gillies-that is the camp followers- who had been watching from the heights. They charged down the hill blowing horns, waving such weapons as they possessed and holding aloft improvised banners. Their cries of "slay", "slay", seemed to the weary English to betoken the advance of great reserves, and in a few minutes the whole English army broke and fled. I can hardly hope, Mr. Speaker, that I shall have such a dramatic effect on this assembly. At any rate, I put that forward with respect as an indication of the use a humble camp follower may have.
It is difficult to remember it perhaps, but this bill was introduced as a measure which would supposedly have some action on inflation, but that seems to have been left so far in the background now that we are dealing with it purely as it affects the Combines Investigation Act. Nevertheless, I think we should remind ourselves briefly of what was said in the speech from the throne. I quote from page 2 of Hansard lor October 9, 1951:
Every measure will be taken which my ministers believe will be effective in counteracting inflation without impairing our free institutions.
Later there is a reference to this particular measure. In spite of this fine introduction

Combines Investigation Act I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the bill has become a foundling. I understand a "foundling" is a child whose parents are unknown and cannot be discovered. While the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) sponsored the measure, through the speech from the throne, in dignified words, when he came to speak about it-I was going to say he blew hot and cold but that would not be correct because there was no hot, he really just blew cold on it. What he said was this, as recorded on page 41 of Hansard for October 15, 1951:
... as regards Immediate additional measures to curb inflation, while others may develop, the only one we are prepared to submit at this time is the one that will arise out of this report ot the combines committee with respect to resale prices.
Then he said:
I do not think that is going to have a very substantial effect on the index ot the cost of living;...
Having been rejected by the Prime Minister, the bill found itself on the doorstep of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson). He seemed to have received very little help from his side of the house, except from the chairman of the committee to whose efforts I shall try to do full justice. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), whom we all remember as the guide, philosopher and friend of the Minister of Justice from two years ago when he first became famous in this house, apparently has taken no interest in this matter. We may hope that before we are finished we may have some words from him.
I want to pause for a moment to comment on the fact that the primary objective of the bill was to bring down the cost of living; and, as I say, that seems to have been lost sight of. It is getting smaller and smaller. Everyone who has spoken about that aspect of it has pooh-poohed it to the point where now we almost forget that it was ever in the picture of all. I feel it is desirable-I know the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) will be interested in this-to point out that this is the third and last of the special hopes that were held out to us in these last months for dealing with inflation. The first hope we had was economy. I am not going to take the time of the house to any greater extent than to remind you that that has gone down the drain. The parliamentary assistant, followed by the minister, has told us, not with sadness as I think they should but with the greatest equanimity, that apparently we must expect nothing from government economy. They prescribe economy for other people, but not for government.
The second great panacea or the second method of reducing prices was high taxes. We were told that they would be painful but


they would have a very salutary effect. I want to admit that at one time that was the general belief. This belief has been exploded now because we have developed elements in the community who are so strongly organized that they are able to defeat the purpose of high taxes; that is to say they are able to augment their income enough to offset the taxes. This remedy, therefore, has really passed out of existence. I was interested in observing that no less a person than the president of the Bank of Montreal referred to that in his annual address, and gave his serious opinion that we will have to revise our thinking about the effects of high taxes.
Finally we have this last remedy, and indeed it would be flattering to describe it as even a damp squib so far as inflation is concerned. The best proof of that is that no one has seriously suggested it would be effective against inflation, not even the chairman of the committee. I say, therefore, that so far as anti-inflationary effect is concerned this measure has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. We can consider this bill purely as to its validity in dealing with the question of resale price maintenance, not expecting that it is going to have any considerable effect. The Prime Minister blew cold on it early in the session, and I think it was the chairman of the committee who suggested that there was only one per cent of the products in food stores that were price controlled. At that time he was making another argument, but I think the argument can fairly be used as showing that he does not think it will have much effect in reducing prices.
As I said, I was not a member of the committee so I propose to say very little on the argument which has been made so forcefully that the committee was conducted in an unsatisfactory manner. Anyone checking the high spots of what has taken place could have no doubt but what there was backing and filling, rather as if it were a peculiar shunting yard where the trains go up and down but hardly ever get out.
First of all there was the reference to the speech from the throne, and then the doubtful opinion of the Prime Minister a day or two later. Later still came the explanation by the Minister of Justice. That is extremely interesting because, in effect, he said that they had found there is such a thing as public opinion, that public opinion had begun to assert itself, that it had made an impression upon them, and therefore they had decided that they would have a committee.
When the committee was set up, it appeared to be constituted with the end of taking a

wide view and of trying to deal with this problem on the basis of finding out the truth, even if it took some time. But there was another miscalculation and quite soon-in about a week, if I remember rightly-the committee was limited in its objective because it was found out by this time that this was a difficult matter, a matter of importance, and that really to get at the truth-which some of us feel is important-might take some little time. The operations of the committee were therefore limited and an attempt was made to take a middle course. I suggest that this course is one that would much better be called a muddled course than a middle course because I think what was done was calculated just to make the worst of both worlds.
The idea apparently was that the Mac-Quarrie report was to be taken as more or less gospel, but it was to be open to people to come along and prove-I think that was the word used by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson)-that it was wrong. I think the word "proved" was used. At any rate, that was the general intention, namely that people had to come along and knock the MacQuarrie report down.
That was, of course, something that was difficult to do because in the MacQuarrie report there were no facts; there were just opinions; and, after all, every man is entitled to his own opinion. The result of this negative method was rather odd because it really meant that, in order to save time, the committee were reduced to the position that they would in the main allow evidence only from those people who were against the report. The result of all that was that positive evidence for the views of the MacQuarrie report and for this measure we have before us was given to a strictly limited extent. Hence, when the Minister of Justice came to make his speech, the evidence he gave was scarcely, if at all, taken from the evidence of the committee but was largely the result of investigation made by his own research department. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is small wonder that the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and others complained vehemently, as they are well entitled to do, against such a method of carrying on the committee.
The second reason that I find it easy to believe that the committee was conducted in an undesirable manner was the speech made yesterday by the chairman of the committee. Last Saturday the chairman of the committee was acting for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in guiding through the financial administration bill, and I thought he did a competent and orderly job. I can only wish that yesterday he had adopted the
Combines Investigation Act same tactics, because I regard this as a serious subject. I do not think this is a subject to be made the occasion for the kind of histrionic display that we had yesterday; and when I say that, I think it is the least critical thing that can be said about it. The temptation to play to the gallery was strong. I am sure that it is heady stuff-having the large majority, which we hear of so often, faithfully pounding their desks. I think I myself would enjoy it greatly.


Mr. Sinnoit:: Come on over here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I can only hope that some element of caution would prevent me from going as far as the parliamentary assistant went yesterday.
To speak seriously, Mr. Speaker, I think we are entitled to have the chairman of a committee give a much more balanced report-and that is a conservative statement-than we had yesterday. I think I can remember a good many occasions on which chairmen of committees have tried to indicate the various views that prevailed; but really this committee seemed to me to get to the cloak and dagger stuff in the speech of yesterday; and I thought the parliamentary assistant unnecessarily went far out of his way to sneer at the business community.
I have noted one thing he said which I greatly regret, and I take it that that was the kind of thing that some of my colleagues here have objected to in the committee itself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to read this because, first of all, it contains a sneer; and then, second, it contains a suggestion as to utterly improper conduct on the part of the business community which, so far as I know and so far as my reading of the evidence goes, was not warranted in any way by the evidence which was given. I read from the speech of the chairman yesterday as reported at page 2147 of Hansard:
If the manufacturers get together in a back room-
You see the idea, Mr. Speaker-the back room. The whole thing at once is shrouded in an atmosphere of criticism and suspicion. To my mind that is not the way in which this thing should be considered. I propose to read a report of the British committee on this subject. They had considerable difficulty. They had criticism to make of resale price maintenance, though on the whole they refused to recommend against it. But what struck me about their report was that they were trying to get at the truth. They were giving both sides. I admit that it was a report; it was not a speech in parliament;

Combines Investigation Act but I do not think that any speech in parliament by a responsible representative, least of all by a responsible person who has been head of an important committee, should descend to this kind of thing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear; either in the
house or as chairman of the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will read
the quotation from the speech to which I have referred, starting again at the beginning:
If the manufacturers get together in a back room and decide that such a retail price shall be the official price, that is obviously an illegal combine and it would be up to our efficient combines branch to commence proceedings against them. If all the retailers organized together, that would also be a combine.
Because there would be more of them, it would1 be that much easier for our combines branch to find out. But if each manufacturer-
And here is the innuendo, Mr. Speaker.
-tells all his retailers at what price they are to sell, then it is easy for these manufacturers to get together informally ...
I repeat that so far as I know that was not suggested. It was left for the chairman of the committee, in his speech, to add this innuendo gratuitously. To continue:
The effect on the consumer is the same, there is artificial fixing of prices . . . That is really the case against resale price maintenance.
I cannot help wondering if that last sentence is exactly what the chairman intended to say because, if I follow his reasoning correctly, he is saying that resale price maintenance includes this horizontal meeting of manufacturers which he has insinuated is the kind of thing that took place. I put forward that interpretation. If there is any escape from it, let us have it; but that is my understanding of it. I regret that that was said. It seems to me a great pity that it should be said by anyone in this house, but most of all that it should be said by a man who had the honourable position of presiding over this important committee and who heard the evidence.
Then there is another thing that the hon. member did which I think is gravely improper. The chairman was not content to give his own opinion; he was not content to give the opinion of other members of the house-which of course he is entitled to do-but he dragged in the civil servant who was acting as clerk of that committee and quoted him.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Shame.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suggest
that that is utterly repugnant to our whole practice; that it is dragging in civil servants and making them adjuncts to a party. I suggest further that that is the kind of thing


which we have quite often occasion to complain about in this house. It is not the first time it has happened, but I hope it will be the last. I suggest it can only happen when a government has come to the state of affairs of the French king who said "L'etat, c'est moi"-I am the state. When you come to the point that you are the state, you are not merely a party in the state, you are not merely the governing party in the state, but you get somewhere beyond that so that even the civil service is a part of the governing party. I feel that is very, very improper. I feel that the clerk of that committee whose name was actually mentioned by the chairman has been put in a very improper and unfair position.


Mr. Sinclair:: I want to make it quite clear that in mentioning the extra work done by the clerk of the committee and the king's printer I was not in any way attempting to involve them in the actual policy with respect to the matter being discussed by the committee. It was to show that, having been asked by myself to do everything they could to expeciite the ordinary proceedings, the committee reports and the printing, they did all they could. I think all members of the committee were very grateful in having the daily proceedings the following day.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The chairman of that committee is entirely wrong if he thinks that is what I am referring to. I did not even notice that, as a matter of fact. I would agree with that of course. What I am referring to is that the parliamentary committee stated the clerk of the committee, the Hansard reporters and I think he said other members of the party, stated that they had never heard such convincing evidence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Such a good witness.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes. I do
not think there is any question about that. I ask the hon. member to look it up in his speech and he will see that he quoted these men as supporting the view, which would be expressing-


James Sinclair: No.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no
question about that. If I am wrong I will be corrected. That is the way I read it. I am saying that in good faith and I do not think I am wrong.


James Sinclair: If I conveyed that impression to the house, then I was doing an injustice to the people mentioned, although I did not mention them by name. What I intended to say, and what I believe I did say, was not whether they were for or against it -it did not matter-but to describe the

actual impact on the committee and on the members of the committee who were there. That was the very phrase used by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). He said the same thing, that the brief had made a tremendous impact.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, on a question
of privilege, the Hansard for yesterday is not available yet.


Mr. Maliais:: Yes, it is.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Here it is, right here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: 1 am in the
midst of making a speech, and I would like to get on with it. If the chairman of the committee finds that I have quoted him unfairly, all right, I will take it back; but that is not the way I read it. I saw his speech and that is the way I read it and I do not think I am wrong.
I suggest that this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and we might try to look at it as serious men and not just toss it backwards and forwards as a political football. I hope I can do that. I am going to quote one or two views of people who are some distance removed from this assembly, and possibly thereby get a little more detachment of view.
I am going to quote first of all a man whose name is well known. While business conditions may have changed a little since the days when he was active, I do not think they have changed much. I refer to Mr. Justice Brandeis. He was a well known liberal in the United States. The word is still respectable in the United States, because it has no connotation except the true dictionary meaning. I should like to read one or two things said by Mr. Brandeis because this thing has got so involved, as I say, in party dispute and there have been so many unpleasant suggestions of improper methods that we are in great danger of forgetting what we are really talking about, and Brandeis with his clarity of expression has outlined this matter rather well. Later I wish to go on, as I said a few minutes ago, and read from the British report which shows the pros and cons, which has critical things to say, which knows the decision is a difficult one, but which eventually reaches a- decision. Brandeis, in the book called "The Brandeis Guide to the Modern World" by a man called Lief, published in 1941, at page 213 says:
I think it important that we should develop the right of producers of trademarked articles, growers as well as manufacturers, to establish by contract the price at which their products shall be sold.
And then on the same page:
The right to fix the retail selling price is not an injury but an aid to business, so far as the particular branch of business is competitive. The cry
Combines Investigation Act
against retail price fixing is based upon a misconception.
Speaking of the evils of unlimited competition-and I would just like to interject here, Mr. Speaker, for a moment, our socialist friends twit us-and this is a very easy point to make-they say: "You are in favour of competition; all right. Why are you not in favour of all competition? Why are you for and against competition?" Well, that does not bother me terribly. There is such a thing as having too much of a good thing, as we all know, and Brandeis refers to it here, that competition can sometimes produce evils. We all know that. And as far as I can make out, from whatever experience I have had, it happens very often in life. If you take a good thing and press it too far it can do you harm. If you take a whole bottle of medicine when you should take only a spoonful it can do you harm.
I read again from Brandeis what he had to say about ruthless price cutting. He says at page 215:
It is notorious that one of the methods employed by the Standard Oil Company and other trusts to create and maintain their monopolies has been to cut prices-
And so on. I shortened the quotation, but it is here for anyone to read. Then there is a further quotation which I think comes absolutely to the point; it is right on the target:
If a dealer is selling unknown goods or goods under his own name, he alone should set the price: but when a dealer has to use somebody else's name or brand in order to sell goods, then the owner of that name or brand has an interest which should be respected.
Lest I forget to say it later, it seems to me there is a great disposition here to forget the most important distinction between the overall combination in the restraint of trade, which I understand our legislation is directed against; that is to say, where I and fifty other people are manufacturing a certain article and we all get together and fix a price, and the case where I as one of the fifty manufacturers of that article want to sell my article. Now, it is open to me to open shops of my own. Nobody can quarrel with that, but if I do otherwise, if I use other shops to sell my articles, then 1 submit that at the very least any fair-minded man will say that that is entirely different from the other thing. We have certain objections to the over-all combination, and I shall read from the British report showing that they had other objections. They were forced to the conclusion that they would not recommend against it; in other words, not do what we are being asked to do now. You see, Mr. Speaker, the man who wrote that was trying to get at the truth. He

Combines Investigation Act was not trying to smear the business community. He was not putting the business community in the box and cross-examining it the way I am told it was done in this committee; and as I say, alter listening to the speech yesterday of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), if the conduct of the committee resembled in the faintest degree that speech he made yesterday, then I would say it was entirely and absolutely improperly conducted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to turn to this part of the British report. Mr. Speaker, I now have yesterday's Hansard, and I think I should put on the record the exact words of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) so that there will be no doubt whatever as to the quotation that I gave. He was speaking of Mr. McGregor's evidence, and I quote from page 2152 of Hansard of December 18 as follows:
In the experience of the oldest committee clerk in this house, the oldest reporters in this house and the oldest members of parliament who heard his evidence through, they say that never had a more objective and more powerful brief been presented to a parliamentary committee.
I think that bears out fully what I said and I shall not weary the house by repeating my comments on it. I think it is a most dangerous practice and I think it is one of the things which happen, unless they are carefully on their guard, to people who retain power a long time. There is a great danger of their coming to regard themselves as demi-gods. As far as I can make out, when you come to be a demi-god a lot of things happen. There are, of course, some people who do not give way to that kind of thing.
I should like to quote from the British report because, as I say, the impression you get from that report is that they are actually trying to find out the truth. Often that seems desirable. They tried to look at both sides of the case and I shall try to quote both sides and what they said. They did not pretend that it was open and shut and they found great difficulty in reaching their conclusions. First I should like to quote from page 4 of the report of the committee on resale price maintenance of June, 1944, as follows:
19. The representatives of the various women's organizations who gave evidence before us were, without exception, strongly in favour of branding. They found it convenient when shopping not to have to examine everything they bought in order to assess its quality; they had found that the containers in which branded goods are normally sold-
I am not reading all of that. It may be that there are other things which I should read, but my time is running out and I want to
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood) .1
refer to the opposite side so that there will be no question. Another paragraph reads:
23. We have therefore assumed that manufacturers will continue increasingly to mark goods in such a way that the consumer may trace their original source. We have also assumed that, although there may be incidental disadvantages or abuses, the system by which manufacturers purposely differentiate their products from those of other manufacturers-
They do not seem to think that they are in the back room together.
-and actively promote their sale by advertisement and other means, is not, generally speaking, in conflict with the public interest.
Then on page 11 is a section headed "opposition to resale price maintenance", and I quote:
51. Fixed prices for branded articles thus prevent certain advantages to manufacturers, distributors and consumers alike, and the arguments in favour of the system which we have reproduced above are based on years of experience. They are not, however, supported by all parties and the undesirability of variations in retail price is by no means universally acknowledged.
My time is running out and I shall have to shorten these quotations. On page 15 there is another section I should like to read as follows:
70. The extent to which fixed margins will operate adversely to the public interest must in our view largely depend upon the proportion of goods to which they apply and the rigour with which they are maintained.
Then there is a reference on page 17 to loss leaders, which they consider most seriously but which I shall not attempt to deal with. I come now to the recommendations to be found on page 33. Here again there are several sections which I shall not have time to read and which point out the difficulties. Do not let it be thought that I am suggesting that these people were wholeheartedly in favour of this. I have only time to read the two operative clauses, as follows:
163. We recommend that no action should be taken which would deprive an individual producer-
That is defined as including manufacturer, wholesaler, grower, importer, etc.
-of the power to prescribe and enforce resale prices for goods bearing his name.
167. We therefore recommend that steps be taken to render illegal the application of sanctions which extend beyond the remedies open to an individual producer for any breach of resale price maintenance conditions.
As I understand it, they are against manufacturers getting together, but they approve of one man doing this. I should like to note what Mr.' Henry Smith said, and this was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He was a member of the committee and he certainly

had great reservations because he was troubled about it. In the first paragraph of his note he said:
I support the recommendations adopted by my colleagues, as I consider that they represent a marked advance from the present position.
That is to be found on page 34. He indicates that he was troubled.


Mr. Garson:: I wonder if my hon. friend would read the first sentence of the next recommendation by Mr. Smith.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It reads:
In my opinion the criticism of resale price maintenance which some of our witnesses presented, and which is set out in the report, is entirely convincing. Whether enforced by an individual manufacturer or by a trade association, it inevitably leads to retail prices being higher than they would otherwise be in areas and under conditions where distribution costs are low, and to an unnecessary proliferation of retail outlets. The recommendations of our report, if adopted, will lessen these evils; but will in my opinion only remove them if it proves impossible for resale price maintenance to be operated without the support of trade associations.
All I am saying is that this man who had all those difficulties nevertheless went along with this report, and he explains why he did it. He went along with that report in spite of his difficulties because he realized the situation that existed. I never suggested that there were not difficulties; I am only trying to get at the truth.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend will realize that it did not prove possible for them to operate resale price maintenance without the assistance of the trade organizations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am perfectly content to let the record stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When the opportunity comes I shall add a little to it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) made a most interesting speech last night when he had some interesting things to say about various matters. He seemed to think that there was a great deal of make-believe. He did an adequate job and I do not propose, as I had intended to, dealing with the McGregor evidence except for one thing. I should like to point out what Mr. McGregor said when referring to loss leaders, a matter which troubled the MacQuarrie committee but which they more or less swallowed. I quote Mr. McGregor's reply at page 412 as follows:
I do not think you can put through legislation that will prevent any dealer from selling below cost.
Then on page 413 we find a qualification of that because he seems to indicate that it is possible to devise legislation. There are the two conflicting statements.
Combines Investigation Act
We have suggested that this matter be not rushed through, but that has not been treated with very great sympathy. I think there is a great deal to be said for it. In the first place, I believe that there have been many converts to this view since this discussion began. There were a great many people who thought when it began it was simply a case of saying "resale price maintenance injures competition and therefore it should be done away with,'' but I think many people have abandoned that view. I suggest to the government it should not be afraid to let public opinion run its course, and that there is no need to rush this thing. Nobody in his sane senses can suggest it is going to produce any immediate result on inflation, and I for my part can see no reason whatever to rush it through, as is apparently proposed.
One thing is clear beyond everything else, that whatever else it will do it will injure a lot of small people. They believe it will injure them, and I suggest no adequate answer to their fears was given. As a matter of fact the only answer that I observed given was to the effect that after all perhaps there are too many retailers and maybe some of them have got to go to the wall. That was said.
All I am asking is that this measure be stood over and not passed now. In other words, I support the amendment. I say that no case has been made and that if the Minister of Justice had spoken for ten hours instead of two he could not satisfy us as to the propriety of passing a bill for which no adequate reason has been given.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, what I have to say today will be brief, concise and to the point. I will not attempt to take up as much time as the hon. member for Greenwood.


An hon. Member:: Stop now.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Having listened to him as long as I have, there is only one thing that is still obvious, namely, that he is still riding both sides of the fence.


Mr. McGregor:: Which fence are you on?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I will take my seat if he will answer the question which I am about to ask him.


Mr. Hodgson:: Who gave you the question?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Does he think that price fixing by the manufacturer is a bad thing for the public? If he does not wish to answer it now he can do so later. I will give him time to think about it. I have listened to all the big guns in the Conservative party.

Combines Investigation Act


Mr. Gibson:: Popguns.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: When the hon. member for . Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), the very able parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: A popgun.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Who told you to say that?


Mr. Hees:: He must have written your speech.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I saw him talking to you.


George Harris Hees: Jimmy wrote this.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -mentioned the Bennett
investigations I could see the jaw of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) drop every time he referred to them. I could also see the jaws of the big guns of the Conservative party drop because it had never been brought to light before now.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Are you sure it was not Hamilton East?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am going to say a few words for the poor little consumer, myself, and the producer.


An hon. Member:: Get out the crying towels.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If the big industrialists on the other side of the house will just contain themselves for a few moments I should like to put on the record what the consumers are looking for.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: What Jimmy told you.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: There have been four or five by-elections recently, and the Conservatives have a great story to tell the people of what they have done on the hustings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: But they are not doing anything to curtail the high cost of living, and when the Liberal party brings forward legislation suggested in the speech from the throne the Conservative party does everything in its power to prevent it.


An hon. Member:: Put more punch in it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: When we come to the vote on second reading members of the Conservative party will have to stand up and be counted. We will see who is for and who is against. Not a single speech they have made has been for or against.


James Sinclair: Sitting on the fence.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: During the time that the special committee sat ample evidence was presented to it. Whether it sat for two years
	-

or two months it could not get a better sampling of evidence than was produced before it.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: All aboard; get on the snow plow.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: But the Conservative party has tried to keep the matter lingering and to keep the consumers in suspense longer because they think it will enhance their policy if they can go back on the hustings and say that the government is doing nothing. They have found out that, if parliament has to sit until after Christmas, the government is going to do something.


An hon. Member:: It is about time it folded up.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I can say that this country-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Did Jimmy tell you that?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -should be very thankful that it has a Liberal leader with the courage to go ahead with this kind of legislation.


George Harris Hees: Can you not read Jimmy's words?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is said by the opposition that nowhere in the world is there such legislation. I think we should take our hats off to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the government for their ingenuity and the fact that they are prepared to accept the responsibility of following out their convictions and doing what they can for the little consumers all across Canada.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Prime Minister said this measure would not help the cost of living.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The Liberal party has always been a middle of the road party. It has always been the little man's party.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Sinclair: No.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Why certainly.


An hon. Member:: Now we know who wrote the speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: That was not in the script.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he shares or disagrees with the view expressed by the Prime Minister in the house on October 15 that the enactment of this measure is not going to have any substantial effect on the index of the cost of living?


Mr. Rinfrel:: Do you?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I agree with the views expressed before the committee, and that is how I have to arrive at my decision.


George Harris Hees: Don't you agree with the Prime Minister? You don't agree with the Prime Minister, eh?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do you agree with the Prime Minister or not?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Further-


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Ask Jimmy for the answer.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -I should like to put a direct question to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), who is so able. I should like to ask him whether he is for or against this legislation and let him say just yes or no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am delighted to accommodate my hon. friend. I think the Prime Minister was perfectly correct in saying the enactment of this measure would not have any effect on the cost of living. I think he was perfectly correct, and when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) put forward a different view he was quite wrong. When the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) put forward a different view he was wrong too, and the Prime Minister was right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A typical lawyer's answer, no answer at all.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am asking for a yes or no answer. Are you for or against the legislation?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Against this bill?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Just a straight yes or no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You will see me vote against this bill.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That does not mean you are against it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If all Liberal members were free to vole as they would like to many of them would vote against it too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker)?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I will use the words of the parliamentary assistant. If those who are crying crocodile tears, the manufacturers-


George Harris Hees: He wrote it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -want to give the little fellow an opportunity, all they have to do is to give him the same discount they give to the big fellow.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Jimmy has you whipped into line,


George Harris Hees: Jimmy's assistant.
Combines Investigation Act


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If the manufacturers would follow the same practice with regard to the little fellow as the producers of oats and barley in the west the little fellows could all have the same opportunity. Your time is very short now if you want to get home for Christmas. You can say whether you are going to vote for or against.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On a question of privilege, I think I should have a chance to answer the question of the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) who asked me if I approved of the manufacturers setting prices. I think I made myself perfectly clear. I entirely disapprove of combinations which are repugnant to the act. I pointed that out in what I said of -the chairman of the committee. On the other hand I have read statements which satisfied me that, prima facie, there is a case for the manufacturer being able to make an agreement with those who sell his products.


An hon. Member:: That is not an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Lambert Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I had the opportunity of listening to the masterly analysis of this legislation, as just propounded by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott). I can only say that I wish he had spoken longer, because he did not have enough time to convince me as to the entire merits of the government's case.
In this particular instance -the government reminds me a good deal of the man who was about to be hanged. Just before he was hanged he stepped up to the group who were about to witness his execution, and said, "Boys, this is certainly going to be a great lesson to me." And I am just wondering if the government has learned a lesson from the procedure which was followed in this case. I would hope that next time they would really have made up their minds before they advise us, in the speech from the throne, that they are going to pass legislation of a controversial nature such as this.
I sincerely trust they will sound out their own members, next time, so that they will not subject them to the considerable amount of embarrassment to which this legislation has certainly brought them. I would think, too, they may come to the conclusion that it is not advisable to set a deadline on -a committee's deliberations. Because, after all, I think the government agrees with me when I say that the committee did not have time to make a very exhaustive analysis of this
2204	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act complex problem. I would think the committee must have learned that matters connected with manufacturing and retailing are very complex indeed.
I do not think, myself, that any member of the House of Commons has had an opportunity to make up his mind on the legislation. After all, the combines branch has been aware of some of the evils and some of the good arising from resale price maintenance, and they have had that information for twenty-five years. They have sought to store it, as a goose egg, as it were, for that time.
Then, just at this particular session of parliament, when we knew we were going to be rushed, the government decided to bring forward this legislation. They must surely have considered-well, perhaps I should not say that; it may be that they are not so concerned about the political repercussions. I do not want to impute motives to them. But surely they must have considered in some way the political repercussions that might possibly flow from the introduction of this bill.
I believe anyone who has studied retailing, merchandising or manufacturing in Canada in the last five years must have realized that there has been a great scarcity of a numb.r of consumer goods. New small manufacturers have started up, to try to fill in that gap. They have met the demand of some small retailers. I believe that actually in many fields of retailing in Canada there are probably more retail outlets than are really required.
But what I fear is that a number of these small businesses, which inevitably, without any interference from the government at all, were going to get into financial difficulties, are now going to say, "Those members of parliament might have done better if they had not passed this legislation that put me out of business".
I really do not believe this legislation will put an efficient merchandiser out of business. At the same time I feel the government might have let the trend go along, without pressing this legislation which for twenty-five years they have felt was not necessary.
I would say to the Liberal members of the committee that the passage of this legislation is a far greater tribute to their loyalty to their party than it is to their common sense. It is of interest, further, to notice the divergency of views among members of the C.C.F. party. I am always curious about -that party. I must confess I used to have a great deal more curiosity about it when there were
fMr. Gibson.]

about thirty-five members from that party in the House of Commons.
However, it is still somewhat strange to me that they should have divided fifty-fifty on this, so far as the members on -the committee were concerned.
Then, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), whose integrity I greatly admire, supports the government's legislation. It seems to me one must be as careful in this world of who one's friends are as of who one's enemies are. Of course, the hon. member for Vancouver East said that he had never employed a man, and that he certainly never intended to. Well, it is rather interesting to see that he has determined to associate himself with the government and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) in this legislation, because I presume if there is any credit to be gained from any bill that is directed against employment in -the retail industry, he will want to have full credit for his part in it.


James Sinclair: That is very unfair.


John Lambert Gibson: It could very well be true. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher), on the other hand, who is one of the few members of that party who have had considerable experience, did express very great concern over the probable fate of the small retailer, if this legislation goes through.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What did he say in the house?


John Lambert Gibson: After all, he had not then had the opportunity of listening to the evidence in the committee. He said at the time the bill was first brought to the house that he intended to support the legislation. But after listening to the evidence presented before him-the same evidence other members of the committee heard-he, with his background of experience, decided that this was poor legislation. While he is not here to vote against it-and I cannot say whether he would have voted against it or not-I certainly gathered from the questions he asked in committee that he was opposed to it.
After all, he is a member who has had a great deal of experience in the retail field, much more experience in that field than the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott).


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He should have stayed here, if he is interested.


John Lambert Gibson: I know the hon. member for Springfield is a man of many parts. But I think perhaps in this case the hon. member for Moose Jaw is better qualified to express an opinion.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you very much. Possibly I am more interested, too.


John Lambert Gibson: I was also interested to note that neither the Trades and Labour Congress nor the Canadian Congress of Labour were particularly interested in this legislation. They themselves were certainly not convinced that it would be of any great benefit to them. I think we have to recognize, too, that it was conceded in committee that the policy of resale price maintenance kept down the price of goods during a period of scarcity. There were some things about resale price maintenance, certain abuses which we all conceded were bad. But after all, you know, abuses of alcohol are very bad, too.
I am sorry that the ingenuity of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), and the intelligence of his very able officials, were not equal to the task of presenting legislation which would have removed the abuses, and still would not have done the harm it is conceivable that this legislation will do.
My riding might be described as a rural riding. I know the local retailers there are the cornerstone of the whole economy of that riding. And as I happened to be a retailer for fourteen years, I might say to the hon. member for Springfield, I sold everything from a needle to an anchor and have had experience in these business matters.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mostly anchors.


John Lambert Gibson: No, mostly needles-for you. I do not think the government of Canada or the people generally have ever been aware of the tremendous contribution the small retailers of Canada-and I emphasize the word "small"-made to the welfare of Canada during the depression. I think that collectively the small retailers of Canada probably carried a greater load of credit, and carried more people on relief, than was done through the combined efforts of all the governments in Canada.
When we are considering this problem we must not forget how tremendously, important the small retailer is. I realize that the small retailer must be a nuisance to the great merchandisers in Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Those merchandisers would very gladly eliminate them, as is evidenced by the fact that they support this legislation. And I imagine they support it only because they feel it is in their interests to do so.
But what I certainly do know is that the small merchants around Port Alberni, Courtenay and Campbell River are the people who, so far as my constituency is concerned, carry the load. Sometimes a fire season comes along.
Combines Investigation Act People are unemployed perhaps for three months. At the higher levels we have the snow season, and the loggers cannot work during the wintertime. I emphasize that this is at the higher levels, around 3,000 or 4,000 feet. Incidentally, when there is a strike, it is the small local retailer who carries the boys. Every time we have a community chest campaign or we are seeking funds for the hospital or when the board of trade has a campaign for local improvement, it is these local retailers who give their support to these worth-while community efforts. They are the people who advertise in the small local newspapers which are an integral part of every community.
Speaking for the people I represent, I say that whatever is bad for these small retailers is bad for the ordinary people who live in these rural areas. Until I have had an opportunity to make a further study of this whole problem, which I realize is very complex and quite involved, I must say that I intend to support the Progressive Conservative amendment for a six months' delay.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon):: We have just had it drawn to our attention, Mr. Speaker, by my counterpart on the other side, the member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott), that all the big guns of the official opposition have taken part in the debate.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I am sorry I missed you.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hardly think I can classify myself as one of the big guns of the party, but perhaps it is time that those who sit on the back benches said something about this important issue. I described the hon. member for Springfield as my counterpart on the other side, but with certain reservations. We are not the same in physical proportions, and we do not part our hair the same. I merely wanted to make the point that we do sit on the back benches on opposite sides.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Remember that grass cannot grow on a busy street.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I remember my own father, who was somewhat of the proportions physically of the member for Springfield and also parted his hair the same, so there is hope that some day I shall be in a position to compare favourably in those respects. He used to hold his hands well out in front of him and say, "For a young man I have a great future before me".
I have been intrigued with the progress of this particular debate, because I had been informed that during the final days of the session there was a tremendous rush to get home. We have not seen any of that, and I

Combines Investigation Act think it is a healthy sign which gives evidence of the desire to debate the details of this controversial piece of legislation,


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Are you for it or against it?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I consider myself fortunate to have had the privilege of sitting in this house during this special session. I feel it has been a good session in which to be initiated into parliamentary procedure, because it has covered a tremendous amount of territory. I suppose we shall remember it as the inflation session. A great deal of the speech from the throne dealt with the problem of inflation and the high cost of living. I believe it was the member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) who described this session as the "inflation session". No doubt the emphasis on that problem made it necessary for the government to seek some reasonable solution or some explanation for the difficulty that, to date, has been considered as one of the important problems in our economy.
In looking around for a solution to problems there is a well known mechanism that we adopt as individuals; we use the scapegoat mechanism. We always try to blame the other fellow. It is rare to find an individual who will stand on his own feet and say, "It is my fault". We use the scapegoat technique and we blame somebody, something or some group which is not powerful enough to fight back. I have the feeling, as I have had ever since the legislation was first introduced, that the small retail merchant is being made the scapegoat in so far as the intent of this present legislation is concerned. As I proceed with my remarks, I want to speak on behalf of the small retail merchant.
Later on in the session we moved from inflation into the deflated period, when there was hardly enough business to keep parliament occupied for a few days. I was amazed because there were important matters of business on the order paper, and as a newcomer I felt we should be digging into those as hard as we could. As a result of the "deflated period" we are now faced with the ordeal of carrying on this important debate with Christmas pressing hard upon us. It is almost unfortunate to have to disturb the serenity of the pre-Christmas period with some of the verbal displays we have seen during the last two days. It seems to me that the final phase of this session is the deflation stage. We have moved from inflation to the deflated period, and now we are in the deflation stage, because from what I can gather by reading the reports and listening to the discussions it would seem that this measure is going to


have a deflationary effect. The deflationary effect is going to be felt hardest by the small retail merchant.
I should like to read from a publication of the Canadian Association for Adult Education. On November 29 this group discussed the topic "Has big business too much power?" In dealing with the question before the house, the official pamphlet has this to say:
In 1950, In a period of high prices, the government at Ottawa set up the MacQuarrie committee to study federal combines legislation and to find out if competition were operating freely in the public interest. The committee found that it was current business practice for a manufacturer to set a "minimum resale" price for his product-that is to force the retailer to sell his product at not less than a minimum price. The committee recommended that the government pass legislation to make this sort of action on the part of the manufacturer an offence. The purpose behind such legislation, of course, would be to bring down the price of goods in some lines and thus ease the high cost of living.
We have bad that point answered by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). Continuing to quote from the article, I read:
Here we have an interesting situation. It is the big retail firms in Canada which stand to benefit from such action. As a matter of fact, one of our largest department stores has been a leader in urging the government to carry out the recommendation of the MacQuarrie committee.
It is the corner store retailer, in the main, who would like to see the manufacturer go on holding the price line on his product. The small retailer welcomes the protection of "minimum resale" prices, or "fair trade" prices, as they are called, because they mean he can retain his margin of profit, and still give "service" to his customers. No one can undersell him past a point because the retail price of the product is not allowed to go below a definite figure. In this case, then it would seem that what the MacQuarrie committee thinks to be in the public interest fairly well coincides with the position of the big retailer.
That was an objective appraisal of the possible consequences of this legislation now before the house.
The legislation has had a rather devious course. That is quite evident. It was introduced early in the session and then sent back to a committee for discussion. Then the committee was cut off abruptly before the retail merchants association had a chance to give evidence. The Ottawa Citizen of November 2 had something to say on this rather unusual procedure:
The delay is disappointing, and it considerably weakens the government's position in the current controversy over measures to check inflation. For in the throne speech, directly following a paragraph dealing with the cost of living, this passage appears:
"The government has received an interim report from the committee studying the combines legislation recommending that suppliers of goods should be prohibited from requiring or inducing distributors to resell such goods at fixed or minimum resale prices. You will be asked to consider legislation arising out of the committee's interim report."

Then the Citizen says:
But unless the new joint committee can perform a miracle, parliament will not be asked to consider anything of the sort-not at this session.
We are considering the legislation and the information that was revealed during the committee discussions. I can't agree, however, that a miracle has been performed. After listening to what the members of the opposition who served on that committee have had to say, I do not regard the work of that committee as miraculous. I would rather use the term "black magic" and say that "black magic" has been effected in making it possible to bring back this difficult and complex legislation into the house before the conclusion of this present session.
As we have moved along in the discussion thus far, I fear that sometimes more heat than light has been generated. Yesterday for a time I was reminded of some rather stimulating experiences I had while overseas. I used to spend Sunday afternoons listening to the orators at Hyde Park corner in London, which is an extremely interesting place. Then later on I went to Bughouse square in Chicago and listened to the orators there. Some of the oratory we have heard in this chamber reminded me greatly of the type of oratory that I have heard on those occasions to which I have referred; it is most stimulating in its emotional appeal, and most entertaining, but it is hardly the type of treatment that is required for the deliberations of this house and particularly for an objective and intelligent consideration of the present legislation. I
I admit that everybody should be able to say his piece. I remember one occasion at Hyde Park corner when a speaker got on his soap box and was rather subversive in his remarks. He was attacking the royal family. An American soldier who was standing by, chewing gum, became greatly disturbed and rushed over to a policeman, or rather a bobby, and said: I say, officer, that man is attacking the royal family; he is trying to incite the people to rush down to Buckingham palace and to do some violence to the king and queen; but the bobby was quite nonchalant in his reply. He merely turned to the crowd and shouted: All for Buckingham palace, queue up here.
I think one of the important safety valves of our democratic way of life is the ability to say our piece, and to say it as we feel, without any inhibition of party or without any inhibition of pressurizing in any way, shape or form. Yesterday I was quite disturbed, after hearing some of these orations, to note the vociferous applause that came from government benches, because the appeal was
Combines Investigation Act emotional and political; it was not dealing with the basic issues of this legislation under consideration at the present time.
I do not want to review the discussion in detail, but I may say that at times we have become quite philosophical, and we have dealt with economic theory as we have moved through the debate. When I listened to the presentation of the Minister of Justice there were moments when I thought he might be advocating a return to the laissez-faire system of economics, or making a downright appeal for outright free enterprise. The illustration was given of Henry Ford's success in the economic field. Later on, however, the minister went on to point out that it is a fallacy to apply measures that are effective at one time to another situation that has changed remarkably as a result of the process of social change.
It is true that times have changed considerably since Henry Ford made his great fortune by manufacturing the model T, the tin-lizzy, by mass production, without any economic restrictions whatever. He did that under free enterprise or laissez-faire economics. The very fact of the successful introduction of the model T Ford is partly responsible for the changes that have come about; for as a result, we live in a mechanized society which has been put on wheels; and the mechanization of our society has brought about changes in the family, in the church and in government, as is only too evident as we attempt to deal with affairs of state at the present time.
For example, if I may I should like to give one illustration. Consider what the model T Ford did to our courting habits. It took the courting procedure out of the front parlour, under the watchful eyes of mother and father, and removed it to the lovers' lane, and so on in the model T or the modern equivalent of the model T, and this is something which has had serious effects on the stability of family life at the present time.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I give that as an illustration of the effect.


Mr. Casselman:: Don't get off the main
highways.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let us pass on, then. As a result of these changes-if we want to get into the theory of the matter-we have what you might call state socialism today. I think the policies of the present government might be easily classified as state socialism. I think it has become evident that one of the great Liberal journals of this country, the Winnipeg Free Press, which developed tremendous influence under the inspired leadership of

Combines Investigation Act that great Liberal, the late J. W. Dafoe, has indicated the dilemma that the present government finds itself in; because that journal has extreme difficulty in applying the theories of Liberalism to the present meanderings of the government. Periodically it quotes from John Stuart Mill, a great Liberal theorist, attempting to reaffirm the faith. Periodically, too, it often goes off at a tangent concerning some of the policies that are being pursued by the so-called Liberal government at the pioment. I think that is evidence of the fact that, as a result of these changes, as a result of the move towards socialism in government, any political group is having difficulty in making adaptation to the demands of the times. And when somebody accuses the Conservatives of meandering all over the lot, when somebody accuses the Conservatives of having no policy, because it too must meet the demands for a changed situation, then I think it is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. And if I may make an appraisal, perhaps the meanderings of the Conservative party are not as extreme as the meanderings of the party in power at the present time. At least we are being consistent and cohesive on this very fundamental point which is before us at the moment.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) put the issue nicely before us in his remarks. He accepts state socialism as being the solution-


Major James William Coldwell: Not state socialism.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: What would you call it?


Major James William Coldwell: Democratic socialism.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A rose by any other name. It is state monopoly.


George Harris Hees: It has surely been sweetened up.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He accepts democratic socialism as being the solution of the underlying social situation facing us at the present time.


Gordon Graydon: He is meandering, too.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He and his party would tend to support complete state control or nationalization, and they are justified in having their views, but I merely pose the question:-I am not going to pursue this argument-I merely pose the question: Is government control a good thing? Is increasing government control a good thing? Is statism a good thing? We must remind ourselves that the only institution in the state that can use force in working its will is government. It has armies and police forces behind it, and if it wants to control, if it wants to assume power, it can assume absolute power. The family, no coercion; the
Mr. Dinsdale.]

church, no coercion; the school, no coercion; but the government can back up its demands with physical force.


Major James William Coldwell: What about private economic power?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Private economic power? You mean the combines and so forth?


Major James William Coldwell: Monopolies.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, monopolies are equally dangerous. Great monopolies are as dangerous as too much power in the hands of the state. There are institutions other than government, and as government power grows it seems to me that functions that belong to these other social institutions, the family, the small neighbourhood community, if you will, even education and the church are usurped by the government. I raise the question as to whether that is the thing we want; whether it is a desirable trend at this time, particularly from the standpoint of our democratic way of life. I believe that a healthy democracy is based on a healthy community life; and a healthy community life can only survive when we have an active, enthusiastic and dynamic local government. As I read the rural weeklies I notice that we have just passed through a period of local council and school board elections, and so forth. I am quite disturbed when I read in community after community that no one is willing to stand and accept the jobs. Councils are elected by acclamation, or the mayor is elected by acclamation because seemingly there is a lack of interest at this grass root level of our democratic way of life. There is a loss of feeling of responsibility in the community. I am going to point out, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the situation that confronts the small retail merchant, as we contemplate the import of this legislation, is only going to aggravate this basic problem of our democratic way of life.
In giving his evidence Mr. McGregor supported that point of view. He said that the small retail merchants will go to the wall. He said they are to be the scapegoats. They are to be the ones who must bear the impact of the deflationary spiral. They must be the victims of this smoke screen that the government is attempting to raise in order to pacify the demand for some comprehensive handling of the present problem of inflation.
There are two sides to this question. There has been pressure from the retail merchant; there has been pressure from the other groups; and the question has been thrown continually at the members of the official opposition: Which side do you stand on, or are you a mugwump sitting in the middle?

Well it is very difficult, in a matter as complex as this, to take a stand unless all the facts are before you. To me the original intent of putting the legislation back in the hands of the committee was to give an opportunity for conscious appraisal of this problem. I understand that one of the major protests, as I interpret it-and nobody has told me to interpret it this way-one of the major protests of the official opposition is the fact that important groups, in particular the retail merchants association, have been shut off and prevented from giving their evidence. For what reason? It may have been to fulfil a promise to make some attempt to solve the inflationary problem, or to introduce additional solutions to the inflationary problem, or it may be for some other reason.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform
the house that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
Government House, Ottawa 17th December, 1951 Members of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament. I thank you sincerely for this address.
Alexander of Tunis



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson for the second reading of Bill No. 36, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fulton.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when the house recessed for lunch I was endeavouring to bring before hon. members the case of the small retail merchant in reference to the legislation before us. I feel the Minister of Justice should be able to understand my viewpoint because his own constituency of Marquette joins that of Brandon. You might say that we are neighbours, and good neighbours too. As a matter of fact my father-in-law and mother-in-law are residents of his constituency. I am not quite sure whether I have converted them as yet-whether they have seen the light.
Combines Investigation Act That is more important so far as my father-in-law is concerned for a son-in-law is not supposed to be too much concerned about the mother-in-law problem.
We have been accused of taking the side of big business. I have never had anything to do with big business and I am not quite sure what the accusation involves. Perhaps I could throw some light on the problem by reading excerpts from one or two letters and thus indicate the sort of big business I am sponsoring this afternoon. This first letter is from a combined druggist and medical doctor in the town of Pipestone, Manitoba, who has been serving that community in that dual capacity almost as long as I can remember. Here is what he says:
For 15 years during the price cutting spree my drug store in Pipestone was in the red every year and I was contemplating closing it, but people asked me not to, for every town and district needs a place like this to take care of emergencies.


Mr. Cannon:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, I would ask the hon. member to table the letter he is reading. I think there is a rule that anything which a member reads or quotes from should be tabled.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there any rule that you
must table a private document? A document from which a minister reads must be tabled on request.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps it will be
sufficient to identify the source of the letter and it need not be tabled.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have already indicated
the source. The letter continues:
I carry several thousand dollars' worth of drugs, chemicals, etc. which are used only occasionally, and has little or no profit. We depended on the daily sales of goods from our shelves to make a living. Since we induced the manufacturers to control their retail prices, my drug store has come out of the red, although the profits have been small, even less than those of grocery stores. If this should be outlawed, I'll be forced to close my drug store, like hundreds of others in small towns, for I could not go through it again, as I am getting to the age where I must slow down in my practice and work. This law would never decrease the cost of living for the profits are small.
That is the type of businessman on whose behalf I am speaking this afternoon. I have another letter from a departmental store merchant in Rivers, Manitoba, adjoining the constituency of Marquette, which reads:
Contrary to the opinion of many, it is my belief that the maintained price asked by the average manufacturer tends to hold the selling price down- rather than up. While the best example of this is in the drug and cosmetic lines I might refer you to that of another department. The maintained price of Tip Top suits allows a much smaller markup than that asked by the retailer on brands where the price is not maintained. It is of some satisfaction to the customer that he can purchase a Tip Top suit from the smallest country store at the same price as from the largest city store. He does

Combines Investigation Act
not have to drive many miles to be able to purchase a packet of Gillette razor blades at a cut price because the Gillette company has tried for years to establish a fair resale price, the same in Halifax as it is in Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is not disclosing the source of the letter. He has informed the house that he has received letters from certain cities. It is customary to disclose to the house the author of letters which are read. If the hon. member intends to quote other letters I think he should disclose their source.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the rule, subject to your much wider knowledge, is that the source of a letter being read, such as the hon. member is now reading, need not be disclosed so far as the origin of the letter is concerned provided the hon. member is prepared to take the responsibility for the facts and statements contained in the letter.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it would be most difficult for an hon. member to assume complete responsibility unless he knew the facts in a letter were as stated. I think this was discussed at some length at a previous session when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) proposed to read a letter. I think it was decided then that in fairness to all members the source of a letter should be disclosed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not requiring the hon. member to disclose the source of the two letters he has just read. If that was to be done, I should have requested it earlier. However, if he intends to read other letters, he should disclose their source.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The druggist in Pipestone is well disclosed because he is the only one.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In referring to the two letters I have just read, Your Honour referred to Pipestone and Rivers as being cities. I am sure that the constituents in those two towns will be flattered at this elevation of status. That helps me to move to my next point, which is more specifically a western Manitoba problem. In conjunction with the trend toward government control which I have indicated, there has also been a trend toward urbanization, a trend toward bigness, which is seen so far as the prairie provinces are concerned in the loss, or relatively slow increase, of population. This is highlighted by statistics published with respect to the recent census. Taking Saskatchewan, for example, we find that that province is in danger of losing four of its spokesmen in


the house as a result of the decline in population arising from continued rural-urban migration. Manitoba also is in danger of losing one representative. The three prairie provinces are rapidly becoming a minority group. Of course there are other implications. There is the problem of education, which has been discussed in the house on one or two occasions during this session. We educate our young people and carry at least a percentage of them to the high school level only to see them migrate to the central provinces where they make their contribution in industry, business and so on, while we with our very small population and with very little support from the federal government-no support at all at the present time- have had to bear the cost of educating these young citizens.
I am going to get myself into a little difficulty in my next statement with the members from Winnipeg, but in western Manitoba we face a double problem of centralization. Not only do we compete with eastern Canada but we also compete with Winnipeg where more than half the population of the province of Manitoba is concentrated in that small area. It stretches out like an octopus and devours everything in its sight. I can perhaps illustrate the point by giving the solution offered by the editor of the Brandon Sun in his well known column "Sun Gleams". Incidentally, Mr. Noakes is Canada's senior editor. He is in his eighties and is still going strong in his editorial capacity. Mr. Noakes recommended as a solution for our civil defence problem a sign on the top of the hill just north of 'Brandon in the form of an illuminated arrow pointing in the direction of Winnipeg. That indicates the underlying attitude.


Mr. Hosking:: On a point of order, I wonder if these remarks have any bearing on price maintenance. The hon. member's speech is of the same type as those that were made in the debate on the address, and he is delaying the extension of the benefits of this legislation to the people of the country.


Mr. Cardiff:: You took up our time and nobody stopped you.


An hon. Member:: It is not price maintenance; it is debate maintenance.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has been relating his remarks to the principle of the bill. I am sure he does not intend to do otherwise.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the mail order houses concentrated in ;he larger urban centres, the small retail

merchant faces a problem of increasing proportions if the legislation now before the house is passed. My time is almost up and I must come to a rapid conclusion. As I see it, the point of this legislation is a desire to do something about the high cost of living, and we have the statement of the Prime Minister that it will do nothing in that regard. Perhaps more than the mechanism of fair trade practice in the form of resale price maintenance, the factor that has contributed largely to present high prices is the process of getting set which resulted from the generous warning given by the government when Canada entered into this emergency period of planning, because it was then that our prices really began to skyrocket and soar.
I think the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) was quite justified when he suggested, on the occasion of referring thiis legislation to the committee, a wider approach to the problem in order to get at the big fellows who are responsible for the upward trend in prices and not make a scapegoat of the small retail merchant in an attempt to raise a smoke screen to obscure the major issue. I have been receiving little green slips from consumer organizations throughout Canada. Obviously it is an organized* program to influence this discussion because the slips are mimeographed. They indicate that the consumer wants to have prices lowered. We have already had it demonstrated to us that this legislation will do nothing so far as that is concerned, and unfortunately will work a real hardship on the small retailer, particularly the small retail merchants to whom I have referred this afternoon who are faced with the double problem of centralization in the east and in the eastern part of the prairie provinces.
Those on this side of the house have been accused of trying to filibuster and prolong the debate on this measure when everybody wants to get home for Christmas. No one is more anxious to go home than I, but it is not the fault of the official opposition that the bringing down of this legislation was so long delayed. We expected it earlier in the session. I think I have indicated it is of sufficient importance to merit the full consideration of every member of the house. We have not had statistics or facts presented as to the merits or demerits. We have reason to believe that the small retail merchant will suffer. So far as the term "humbug" as applied to our policy is concerned, I should like to draw the illustration of the learned professor of biology who was presented with
Combines Investigation Act a synthetic bug that his students had concocted in an attempt to fool the old gentleman. They had wings from a fly, a body from a bee, legs from grasshoppers, and so forth. He looked at it under his microscope, paused momentarily, and finally said, "This is a humbug". That seems to aptly describe the nature of the legislation before us.


Mr. W. A. Boucher (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, as one who had the opportunity of being a member of the committee on combines legislation I wish to make a few comments on some of the briefs presented to the committee. Representing a rural constituency, first of all I want to deal with the viewpoint of the farmers with respect to this proposed price maintenance legislation, and then I also want to deal with the viewpoint of the small merchant as I have had some experience in that line. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture made their views very clear in their brief, and I should like to quote certain passages. On page 1 they say:
Our views on this matter are likely already known to this committee.
In our brief presented to the special committee to study combines legislation, known as the Mac-Quarrie committee, in August of 1950, we recommended that "The Combines Investigation Act should be amended to provide that resale price maintenance shall be an illegal practice when resorted to by a single individual or corporation."
Then, on page 9 of the same brief, we find this:
More than half of all the purchases made by farmers for productive purposes come directly under some form of private resale price fixing. This list would include the following tools and supplies:
Farm machinery and parts
Most items of general hardware such as small tools
Many construction and building materials Fertilizer
Truck and auto tires Gasoline and oil Milking machines and parts Milk coolers Electric motors
All barn fixtures such as steel stanchions, water bowls, etc.
Some brands of paint
Woven wire, wire gates and barbed wire
Veterinary supplies and drugs for livestock.
And the next is a very important paragraph which was quoted by the Minister of Justice, and which I repeat:
In some of the above cases the entire sales come under private resale price fixing.
Then at page 15 of the same brief we find this paragraph:
The production and sale of farm machinery is a typical example of the policy of an industry dominated by a few large producers and using privately administered price fixing as a means to maintain prices at the expense of production and employment in their own industry. This policy is in sharp contrast to the farming industry which, because of

Combines Investigation Act its nature, maintains total production at relatively stable levels and feels the full impact of changing demand for its products.
I have here a resolution passed by the annual meeting of delegates of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. It was my privilege to file with the committee this resolution which was passed by the 27th annual meeting of the delegates of the Saskatchewan wheat pool held in Regina, November 6 to 16, 1951. In their resolution they say:
That we commend the federal government for proposing to introduce legislation to stop the practice of resale price maintenance by manufacturers and business corporations and recommend that this meeting declare its unalterable opposition to any degree of retail price fixing, or the determining of resale minimum prices by manufacturers, processors and suppliers of all kinds; and deplore the action on the part of some business firms in withholding supplies from wholesale houses and retail merchants who, through patronage dividends or otherwise, have not conformed to this form of monopolistic price control; and urge the federal government to proceed with the legislation declaring the practice of resale price maintenance by manufacturers and business firms illegal, as originally proposed, and have this done as soon as possible during the present session of parliament.
This was carried unanimously by the annual meeting of the delegates of the Saskatchewan wheat pool.
In addition to organized agriculture, the proposals are supported by the following organizations or groups: The Canadian Congress of Labour; the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour; the railway brotherhoods; the Co-operative Union of Canada, and all the constituent bodies. The last I am going to mention, but not the least, is the Canadian Association of Consumers. We have all this evidence of popular support from the consumers, the farmers and the workingmen. May I say here that Mr. F. A. McGregor, the former combines commissioner, said in his evidence that in his opinion the proposed legislation would reduce prices to consumers. As I said at the beginning, I have had some experience as a small retail merchant; and in my view the little merchant has nothing to fear because the figures show that he has been able to survive competition from big firms, particularly in those states of the United States where price maintenance is illegal.
So, as I said before, I am satisfied it will not hurt the small retailer who plays such an important and useful part in our community. I shall not detain the house longer, but in conclusion let me say that I feel this is good legislation. It is legislation that will be beneficial to a very large section of the Canadian people.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this matter in the House

of Commons two months ago yesterday, immediately after reading the MacQuarrie committee report. I was opposed to the report then, and recommended the setting up of the committee to study the matter before legislation was introduced. This was done. This was before any letters or communications of any sort had begun to come in from the retailers on this matter.
I claim therefore that my position then, as it is now, was based purely on objective reasoning. The fascist behaviour of the government in the committee, first by denying witnesses a hearing and, secondly, in this house trying to shout down the opposition, is incipient fascism of the first-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege: the word "fascist" is not parliamentary, and I demand that my hon. friend withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think it is the sort of word that should be used in debate.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I did not say that the government was fascist. But, as the word "humbug" was used as applied to policy, then I submit that if the word "humbug" could be used to designate the policy we are accused of following, then the word "fascist" could be used-


Pierre Gauthier: It is quite different.


Agar Rodney Adamson: -to describe the policy or action which has taken place in committee. I say that, because witnesses were denied the right to be heard, which is the first point of fascism; and the second point is that an attempt in this house has been made to shout down and to deny the opposition its proper opportunity to present the case against this legislation.


Robert Henry Winters: That is nonsense.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, may I say one or two more words on this point of order? If the debates in the house are not going to descend into a scurrilous exchange of abuse from one side of the house to the other, I think we should discourage the practice, which has been adopted to quite an extent by the opposite side of the house, of using these adjectives. I suggest, and I think my friend will agree, that to accuse any person in a democratic country of being a fascist is one of the worst forms of insult it would be possible to imagine. I renew my demand that it be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe I have intimated that the word should be withdrawn, and I understood that the member for York West (Mr. Adamson) was prepared to withdraw it. I should comment that I feel there has been strong language used by both sides of the

house. It would be more in keeping with the traditions of this highest court in the land if we tried to express ourselves in a manner which we could all read with pride in the future.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I willingly withdraw. I thank you for your remarks, which I hope have restored to a great measure the democratic principles in which we all believe.
I opposed this legislation because it is just another bit of prohibition. I submit that the enforcement of it will be as difficult as the enforcement of the prohibition against the consumption of alcoholic beverages, now an unhappy memory. I say that, Mr. Speaker, because of the ramifications of the retail trade and, as a matter of fact, of the entire business of manufacturing, jobbing, wholesaling and retailing, to say nothing of the small drug stores, grocery stores, haberdashers and other small retailers. I hope to show later in my remarks that the enactment of this measure will dislocate the normal course of business in this country. I say that one of my reasons for opposing it is the fact that it is another prohibition. It will, in fact, create a species of grey markets, or if not grey markets at least grey agreements. It will be most difficult to completely police this measure.
On the very simple question of a manufacturer withholding goods from a retail outlet that has cut prices, it will be found that prosecution is extremely complex and evidence extraordinarily difficult to obtain. If there is a concentrated drive against this legislation by the small retailers, as there may well be, the policing of the measure may require a great number of people in the combines administration. As I have said, this legislation is obviously unpopular with a great number. Difficulty will be experienced in registering convictions through the ordinary process of a jury trial. I point that out as being one of the disadvantages of the enactment of this legislation, especially when there is obviously a great body of opinion opposed to it.
I also oppose this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is unconstitutional. It restricts the freedom of contract which is a civil right, and restricts it in such a way that even fair and reasonable contracts are prohibited. Not being learned in the law I do not put myself up as a professional witness in this regard, but it seems to me that the freedom of contract is a basic and inalienable right under the British North America Act. If it does anything this legislation restrains the freedom of contract. This may in the government's opinion be desirable, but I do
Combines Investigation Act not agree that it is. I do not think it is constitutional, and I believe this legislation will run into considerable trouble on that issue alone.
What is the logical and almost immediate result of this legislation? It is going to concentrate an even greater volume of business in the main shopping centres. I happen to have some knowledge of the conditions in the city of Toronto, particularly concerning the main shopping artery, downtown Yonge street. I am informed by people whose duty it is to inform me that if this legislation goes through there will be an even greater flow of business from the small retail merchants to this main shopping artery. These are not. small stores on Yonge street. Property on that street has a value of many, many thousands of dollars per foot, so they must be big businesses. The information given to me by people whose duty it is to give it to me is that there will be a greater concentration of business in this area. The same thing will apply to the main shopping areas in other urban centres. A concentration of trade will take place in your densely populated and highly concentrated areas.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In line with his present logic, can he explain why it is that a concentration does not take place, along the lines that he suggests, in the grocery trade and in the hardware trade where there is virtually no resale price maintenance?


Agar Rodney Adamson: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has raised that point. Your grocery trade and your hardware trade do not have resale price maintenance; your hardware trade does, to a certain extent.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To a very small extent.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes. Your grocery stores, with the one exception of Michie and Company, who had to leave downtown Toronto, do not centre in your high-rent areas. You have no concentration of your food industry in your downtown area. Those stores do not go there for a number of reasons. The first reason is that they require a great deal of space, and the volume per square foot in those trades is not sufficient to pay the high taxes and the high rent required in your downtown section. There are many other reasons for that. I think that point has reinforced my argument that your grocery remains in your suburb because it cannot and does not pay the high rent and the high taxes of your downtown district. There are other reasons.
94699-141z

Combines Investigation Act
There are the reasons that your downtown shopper is not a shopper for groceries. Your downtown shopper is a shopper who buys, for the most part, price-maintained goods. Your average housewife on an expedition to buy groceries does not go downtown or into your main shopping centres in order to buy those household supplies. I think that is and has been the pattern of marketing in Canada.
I mention this matter because I think it (shows that this business of resale price maintenance affects only a small part of the family budget; as a matter of fact I think it was 6-3 per cent which was mentioned here the other day. But where you have a purchaser for brand-name goods, goods which *are bought in downtown shops, with your concentration of business there, you will get your big volume downtown, to the detriment of your suburban and small town shops. I think that was the point I was trying to make.


Lauréat Maltais: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes.


Mr. Maltais:: Is that 6-3 per cent the percentage of the total families?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Of the budget; yes.
I want to go on to the recent result-and I think it is germane to this discussion-of price wars in the United States. There is here an example which I think we can regard as a reasonable sample of what we may expect. In the city of New York there was a violent price war put on by Gimbel's, Macy's and one or two of the other large department stores. Apart from the subsequent legal question of certain manufacturers suing the stores for selling their goods below the agreed-on price, the result has been that prices today, of the goods which were subject to that price war, and which were most intensively used as loss leaders, are now back again and judging by last week's New York press, are actually selling at a higher price than that at which they sold before the price war took place.
There price wars were, of course, conducted on a cash basis, and extremely drastic reductions took place for a short time. But the people they benefited', if they benefited anybody, were the comparatively minuscule group who happened to be at that moment in the market for the particular items which were subject to drastic price cutting. Those and those only benefited from the price war.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be interesting for the house to hear what the late

Mr. Justice Louis D. Brandeis has to say on this subject, from the legal point of view. He said:
Already the displacement of the small independent businessman . . . presents a grave danger to our democracy. The social loss is great; and there is no economic gain . . . Shall we, under the guise of protecting competition, further foster monopoly by creating immunity for the price-cutters?
America should be under no illusions as to the value or effect of price-cutting. It has been a most potent weapon of monopoly-a means of killing the small rival to which the giant trusts have resorted most frequently. It is so simple, so effective. Farseeing organized capital secures by this means the co-operation of the short-sighted unorganized consumer to his own undoing. Thoughtless or weak, he yields to the temptation of trifling immediate gain and, selling his birthright for a mess of pottage, becomes himself an instrument of monopoly.
There, Mr. Speaker, is the opinion of a great liberal with a small "1" as to the result of this business of price war and price cutting. I submit in all seriousness that opinions like those should be considered, and considered seriously, entirely apart from the heat of this present debate. We are, as has been shown by the price wars in New York, liable to destroy the very small retailer, who is the very backbone and safeguard of our whole consumer system.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. gentleman permit another question?


Agar Rodney Adamson: I think my time is half up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will save it until the end, if I may.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I now come to the general question of inflation, Mr. Speaker. This legislation has been introduced in the belief, or on the supposition, that it is anti-inflationary, despite the fact that the Prime Minister stated that it would have very little effect, despite the fact, as has been shown over and over again in this debate, that the amount of goods purchased through price maintenance is a small percentage of the average weekly budget, or the factors which go into the dominion bureau of statistics cost of living index. Despite that fact, as has been shown over and over again, the reason for this legislation keeps on being given as an anti-inflationary measure.
Let us show very simply what is inflation, Mr. Speaker. Inflation is now, has been in the past and always will be, caused by an increase in the supply of money, not equalled by an increase in the supply of goods. Nothing has altered that since the time of Diocletian, and this measure is in many ways similar to parts of the edict of Diocletian and parts of the Sumerian code, and parts of the laws put down at the time of the great inflation in France, and it will have basically the same economic effect; the only

difference being that in the time of Robespierre the French government had the use of the tumbril and the guillotine. These economic prohibitions have always brought disaster to those who tried them. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, on the broad question whether this will aid in curbing inflation, by admission and by evidence already brought out in this debate the answer must be no.
Coming now to my own particular constituency of York West, I received a very great number of letters and telegrams; and during the time of the Ontario election, and afterwards, I made it my business to visit as large a number of my constituents as possible who had either written to me, sent me telegrams or in other ways communicated with me. In only one case did I find that the communication had been inspired or suggested by others. In the other cases-and I have some 65 telegrams in front of me-the actions were based on a genuine fear which the small druggist and the small retail merchant have as to what would happen to them should this legislation pass. I cannot neglect that body of opinion. I cannot believe that that body of opinion, expressed freely and without prompting or without coercion in any way, represents anything but a genuine fear and a true and honest opinion of the small retailer and the small merchant in my riding. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, having regard to this evidence, even if I wanted to, I could not possibly support this piece of legislation, based on the simple equation of the greatest good for the greatest number. There can be no question that these small retailers, the small druggists, the little general merchants and the specialty shops in a growing suburban district, are definitely afraid of what will happen should the trade that they are slowly building up in a new district be siphoned off by means of the loss leader to the main downtown stores.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, there is no suggestion that any action will be taken to cope with the loss leader device in this legislation. I submit, again on the evidence given in the price wars in New York, that the loss leader, to be effective, must maintain a reduction of probably 30 per cent to 35 per cent. Take a brand name product, cut it 35 per cent, 40 per cent or even 50 per cent and you create a magnet that will draw the people from the districts of any community to the central shopping section. You cannot help it. I know this because stores in the central part of Toronto have intimated it. It has proved to be so in New York. Even with transportation difficulties as they are, the opportunity of saving a large percentage will certainly attract the buyers.
Combines Investigation Act
I want now to say something about the construction industry. I have not talked about the retail merchants except as it affects them in my own particular community. But what about the construction business? I was interested in this, Mr. Speaker, because I have in my hand what is a normal construction catalogue of plumbers' supplies. It is typical of dozens and dozens of other industries which are supplying goods. Every item in these catalogues has a list price. Every single item has what is known as a list price. It is upon this basic pricing system that contracts are arrived at. Unless there is some such pricing device no contractor or house builder would be able to even remotely gauge the cost of a house or of the thousand and one other things which have to be built. All these things have a price.
There are different types of discounts, but these are the prices suggested by the manufacturer for the consumer. Sometimes the discount is great and sometimes it is small, but nevertheless these are the indicated prices to be paid by the consumer. Without a method such as is contained in this and other great catalogues which contain thousands and thousands of items the construction and building industry could not possibly arrive at any firm idea as to what should be charged for a contract.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Is it the big builder or the small builder who gets the big discount?


Agar Rodney Adamson: If a builder is building ten houses he probably gets a larger discount than the builder who is building only one, but the builder who is building those ten houses is building for the small consumer and therefore it is the small man who gets the bigger discount under this system of pricing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I suggest to my hon. friend that it is inherent in all price maintenance plans that the big builder would get the big discount.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, but my point is that, without this system of pricing, the whole construction business would fall to the ground because it would have no yardstick with which to operate. These are price-controlled and price-maintained articles. If you are building a dam and require 100,000 bags of cement the price you would get from the cement company would naturally be much less than if you were buying only ten bags with which to put in a basement. The question of handling, of bagging, of invoicing and of bookkeeping would make it much cheaper in the case of the large order. My point is that this legislation is going to throw
2216	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act a monkey wrench into the construction industry and that is a condition which it will be difficult to overcome.
I come now to the automobile trade. Every automobile has an advertised list price. You might get a better turn-in value for your old car, but the whole industry is based upon the figure which the motorcar manufacturer uses as his list price. If that is destroyed by this legislation, as it obviously will be, upon what will you base the price of your motorcar? How is the automotive industry going to operate unless there is some target to be used as an end price?
Then there is the question of repairs. Every garage in Canada that sells a specific line of automotive products has a catalogue with the list prices of the manufacturer. Those are the suggested prices to the consumer. If that practice is outlawed how will the consumer who needs repairs be able to know that the price he is charged is a fair price? He will not know that he is even getting the genuine parts recommended by the manufacturer of his car. If no price is indicated he will have no idea what profit the garage is making. I consider that these factors are not only useful to the consumer, they are absolutely essential. The consumer should have some idea of the estimated cost of repairs to the motorcar he happens to be driving.
I oppose this bill because it will not reduce the cost of living. As I have said, only 6-3 per cent of the goods bought by the average family are price-controlled. It will only concentrate business in the main shopping centres, it will encourage the unfair device of the loss leader, it will dislocate the labour market in the retail trade, it will encourage monopoly in the hands of a few large retailers who are also manufacturers of their own branded products, and it will militate seriously against the small retail merchant.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would my hon. friend not
agree that the remarks of Mr. Brandeis to which he referred in connection with the 1951 price war in New York were actually uttered by Mr. Brandeis in 1913, some thirty-seven years ago?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, but they were similar to the remarks made by Mr. Justice Holmes and others. They are just as true today as they were then. I suggest that a great deal of the minister's evidence dates back to 1930 and 1935.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: 1921.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The basic economics of this thing do not change. The serious results of


price cutting years ago would be the same today. The effects would be just as evil today as they were in days gone by.


Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
may I suggest to you that now that we have been kept here so long it would be a most gracious act on the part of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) if he would arrange to provide air accommodation so that we may be able to get home in time for Christmas. As a matter of fact, before winter sets in I should like to fly over the area which we have picked out as the site for the new airport for the T.C.A. I understand that standing order No. 11 of Beauchesne's parliamentary rules provides that where a member has a direct pecuniary interest in any legislation such as this, he is not entitled to vote. With that I have no argument, but on the part of those who have taken part in this debate there were a few unintentional injustices that I should like to endeavour to correct before the debate ends. All members have received many communications from the druggists of this country, perhaps too many for their own good because it may be that some of them were ill-considered. Members received them, however, only because the druggists are perhaps a little better organized than many other retailers. As a matter of fact if they wish to exist they have to be organized.
At this point I wish to refer to Mr. Preston, the secretary-manager of the Canadian pharmaceutical association, who appeared before the committee and made a statement that was perhaps not altogether correct. As to one question he was asked I consider he would have been better off if he had not attempted to answer it. It was asked by Mr. Phelan, the learned counsel for the committee. In his remarks yesterday the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) stated at page 2148 of Hansard that Mr. Preston was not telling the truth. In today's copy of the Globe and Mail of Toronto they state that the hon. member accused Mr. Preston of lying. I contend there is a fine distinction between being accused of not telling the truth and an accusation of lying. With the Christmas season so close and everyone feeling more or less in the Christmas spirit, I would respectfully suggest that if the hon. member for Coast-Capilano were here he would only be too glad to withdraw such a statement.
The word "aspirin" was bandied around a great deal by members both in the committee and in the house. Aspirin is made by one of the most reliable and trusted firms in the country. The British Pharmacopoeia

name for aspirin is acidum acetylsalicylicum and the synonym is aspirin. Acetylsalicylic acid is made by the action of acetic anhydride on salicylic acid. It contains not less than 99 * 5 per cent of CsHsCh which shows that it must be pretty well pure. The chemical formula CHuCOgCgHiCOOH is understood generally, and anyone with any knowledge of chemistry will realize what might happen if one of these symbols were out of order. You might wake up some morning with an atomic bomb. There is a difference between aspirin and acid acetylsalicylic which some members have recommended buying. They say you pay 79 cents for 100 aspirin and 19 cents for acid acetylsalicylic. The comparison is not altogether correct.
When you buy 100 aspirin you are buying a uniform product which will not vary once out of a million times, but if you buy acid acetylsalicylic in 5 grain tablets they are not fit to use unless made by a most reputable firm. They will not dissolve because they are too hard and they are not uniform in what they contain. I remember an episode in the first war when to save a few cents the government bought some such substitute. They were not doing the work and when examined were found to contain 1J grains of aspirin. In the last war I had a great deal of experience along that line in the central maintenance stores at Ottawa. I had to do purchasing, and we found that in many cases we had been supplied with useless drugs after we had them all examined and tested. No druggist should buy any drug unless he is sure that it is pure. I am sure that all druggists who read the newspapers were very grateful to the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) for the kind words he had to say yesterday on their behalf.
There is one more impression that I want to correct. From the debate in the house and the hearings of the committee I would infer that retailers all had formal contracts with these manufacturers. I am in the retail business and we deal with hundreds of firms and dealers all across this country and in England where they have had price maintenance. I must say that we have not one formal agreement with any firm.


Mr. F. E. Lennard (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment and to oppose the motion to make certain amendments to the Combines Investigation Act because I feel they are wrong. The small businessman thinks they are wrong and I agree with him. In that regard I should like to refer to an editorial that appeared in a paper in my own riding, the Hamilton Spectator. By the way, it is an independent paper and is
Combines Investigation Act sometimes on one side of an argument and sometimes on the other. I want to quote from the leading editorial of Tuesday, December 4. It is headed, "Anti-Fixers in a Fix". It reads as follows:
If ever an Ottawa drama turned into a vaudeville ballyhoo it is that parliamentary committee's inquiry into resale price maintenance. Things are so mixed up now it will take a royal commission to straighten them out, and what started off as a bold bid to rescue the consumer from a dragon has developed into some excited clouting of an elusive mouse. The probe was all right in principle. It was supposed to throw light on and prevent a practice whereby a manufacturer or supplier tells the retailer the price at which his product will be sold to the public, and refuses to let him carry that brand unless he obeys the mandate. This, contend the critics, interferes with proper price competition and leads to soaking the householder in his purchase of everything from stoves to toothpaste.
Now, who are the prosecutors? Why those same government trapeze artists who have, for one thing, a $200 million fund to keep food prices as high as is politically possible. It was their legerdemain that stored millions of pounds of butter to keep the price tag up while the consumer was forced to turn to margarine, and bitter political opposition had to be overcome to get even that relief. It was this talent that had potatoes plowed into the ground; gave away surplus fish and neatly filched $60 million-
I thought it was $65 million.
-from the Canadian taxpayers to make good a poor "price-fix" with Great Britain on wheat.
Then, further on in the editorial:
Then, who is the "little guy" who is to be helped by the government crusade? From the evidence so far the only people who want the practice made illegal are the mass buyers and sellers of merchandise. The "little guy" says he will go broke in the retail business if sudden big sales can sharply cut the price of items he carries in relatively small supply. And just to show how bright some people can be at the wrong time, in steps Spadina's David Croll to propose that it should be a criminal offence for a businessman to sell any commodity for less than five per cent above cost- to check the loss-leader practice. What an army of government detectives we may have yet!
It would be absurd to suggest that resale price fixing is a simple problem; it is anything but. It would be more absurd to claim there are no valid arguments in favour of letting it stand as it is; certainly for protection of the smaller stores. The main challenge goes deeper. If there is proper competition at the manufacturing level then resale price maintenance seems a secondary issue, because prices could not be kept at an exorbitantly high level save by cartel or combine methods. If there is not unrestricted competition then that is the combine commission's job.
Some 'comment on that editorial came in this morning's mail. I have here editorial comment from the Kingston Whig-Standard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I waited until the hon. member had read the whole of the one editorial he wished to read before I interrupted him. I did not wish to interrupt in the middle of it. However, if he intends to continue to read a succession of editorials commenting

Combines Investigation Act on this question, then I think I should draw Your Honour's attention to the citations in this matter.
Citation 265 in Beauchesne's third edition says:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
There is no question about it, that committees of the house are an extension of the house, and are included by the word "house". Then, may I draw Your Honour's attention to citation 266 which says:
On the 17th March, 1933, a member quoting a newspaper in debate-
And the Iron, member for Wentworth has been bringing newspaper editorials into the debate.
-was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker-
And Your Honour will take note of that; it was the Deputy Speaker.
-who said: "The rule is quite clear, that the quoting of a newspaper, an author or a book which reflects upon debate before the house, either directly or indirectly, is entirely out of order, because members are here to give their own opinion and not to quote the opinion of others . . . Members may quote an article or a book stating facts, but a commentary on any proceeding or any discussion in the house, with the object of swinging an opinion to one side or the other, is out of order."
I suggest to the hon. member for Wentworth, in all fairness and with all respect, that we are more interested in his opinions on the question than we are in the opinions of the writers of editorials. I hope he will not take offence at the suggestion I have made. I have not suggested that he should refrain from speaking; but I would rather he would give us his own speech instead of the comments of editorial writers, particularly when the ruling to which I have referred is so clear.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, the point that
has been made must of course be taken in relation to the context of the editorial.
I would point out to Your Honour, if the reading of editorials is to be regarded as being out of order, that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself has been out of order on a number of occasions during this present session.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: And the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew).


George Alexander Drew: As has also the leader of the
opposition, and as has the minister who has just spoken.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Not that I can recall.


George Alexander Drew: I might point out that a great
many members have found occasion to use editorials as indicating public reaction to certain matters that are under consideration.
The word that is used in the reference quoted is the word "reflects". I suggest to Your Honour that it has been regarded as meaning that no reflection

accepting the ordinary use of the word reflection-shall be cast upon a member by something that is read from a newspaper or from an editorial, for the very obvious reason that, if there is a reflection of that kind, then the member has no opportunity to deal with it until a later occasion.
The fact that editorials are constantly read here will be recalled by every member, because there is probably no single item that has come up so much before the orders of the day are called, on questions of privilege, as references to editorials or other comments hon. members have seen fit to read and to deal with.
In this particular case I suggest there is no reflection- on the house, in the sense that that word is ordinarily used, and that the editorials under consideration are editorials which indicate an attitude toward a matter of very real public interest in different parts of this country.
I can only repeat that if there were to be a ruling that editorials are not to be read, then I would say with all courtesy-and I regret, in his absence-that the Prime Minister has chosen to follow this course on a number of occasions during the present session; and I am sure he has done so believing that it was most certainly not contrary to the practice of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that a certain latitude has been given, in the quoting of editorials. However, I would ask the hon. member not to have his whole speech consist of the reading of editorials.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you; that was my point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Citation 265 in Beauchesne's third edition says:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
A certain amount of latitude has been given, but I hope the hon. member will not abuse the privilege.


Frank Exton Lennard: I appreciate Your Honour's ruling, and will abide by it. I might say I

also understand why there is this more or less undue concern from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because I know he wants to get home for Christmas. He has been running around the house for the last day or two asking people not to talk so much, and all that sort of thing. I fully realize what has happened. But his wishes at this time are no concern of mine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the hon. member would like to get home for Christmas, too.


Mr. Leonard:: I have not as far to go as you have.


William Earl Rowe: And he has not talked as much this session.


Frank Exton Lennard: I spoke for only three or four minutes about veterans affairs. That was the first time I had anything to say this session.
I shall not quote the editorial. I am prepared to stand by Your Honour's ruling, and shall not do more than say that it was an editorial in the Kingston Whig-Standard. whose president is the Hon. W. Rupert Davies; and the publisher and general manager is his son. That paper has never been known to be anything but a supporter of the present government.
An. hon. Member: A very weak one.


Frank Exton Lennard: In this case they are against this legislation.
I wish now to quote, not from an editorial but from an article which appeared in the New York Times of June 6, 1951, and which has not anything to do with this debate. It makes no reference whatever to the debate, but quotes Mayor Benjamin H. Namm, mayor of Brooklyn, as follows:
If the price war now going on in New York city continues for long, it will result in the bankruptcy of many small merchants and widespread unemployment. If the war continues to spread to other cities, he contended, the entire price structure will be threatened and if it is extended to other industries, the entire economy will be upset during this critical period of national emergency.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, this committee was set up to consider the report of the MacQuarrie committee. I should like to know why representatives of the retail trade, wholesale trade, the consumers and the manufacturing industry did not have some place on that committee. Today two of the biggest items in the family budget are rent and food. Rents are not controlled by manufacturers. The other item, food, is produced and largely marketed by the farm industry. Articles of food are not, to any large extent, resale price-maintained by manufacturers.
Combines Investigation Act With one or two exceptions, food products are marketed by the so-called low cost distributor.
As other speakers have said that they have received many letters and communications, I do not propose to burden this house with any recitation of the many I have received. There is one, however, that seems rather pertinent, and which was sent to me by one of the leading retailers in the city of Hamilton. He said in part:
In view of the fact that retailers who actually represent over half the entire business of Canada are so vitally interested in the above-
That is the legislation which was before the committee.
-does it not seem the fair and democratic policy of your government to at least give this group the opportunity of expressing their views with a special committee of the house regarding the above legislation as it affects resale prices, etc., before it is presented to parliament.
In that connection I may say that the committee did hear from the Canadian retail federation, but refused to hear from the retail merchants association which has a membership in Canada of over 20,000. I think that is the one great oversight on the part of the committee which shows what a farce this whole business is.
I received four of these robin's egg blue slips which were sent out by the Canadian association of consumers. The only address shown is 1245 Wellington street, Ottawa. Many in this house have a fair idea who is behind this organization. However, I received four of these slips, and other members have received a similar or lesser number. In answer to that slip which requests me to protect the interests of the public in these times of high prices by voting to outlaw the present price-fixing practice of resale price maintenance, I wrote the following letter:
I received your communication of recent date in respect to the government bill to prohibit resale price maintenance.
I cannot support this bill because, in my opinion, it would be one more step towards monopoly. If we are denied the privilege of any form of price maintenance it means that the big stores can, and will, undersell and put out of business many small retailers throughout the country and then, a few years hence when they have cornered the market, up will go the prices ... I regret not being able to meet your request and felt that the only honest course was for me to tell you so and give you my reasons.
I received a reply to that letter which reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Lennard:
Thank you very much for your immediate reply, and the information it contained. I had not considered that aspect of the matter, and am glad to have it drawn to my attention.

Combines Investigation Act
I am not saying anything in this house that I am not prepared to say in my own locality. As I said at the beginning, the small businessman thinks this is wrong and I agree with him. I am speaking for the small businessman in the town of Dundas, the adjoining city of Hamilton and the other towns and villages adjacent to them. I am speaking for the man who has his whole stake in the local community, the man who has been the backbone of that community. I am speaking for the man who belongs to the Kinsmen, the Lions, the Rotary and other service clubs; the man who has his all in his community-the small businessman. If the small businessman makes a profit he is apt to reinvest it in his business or in some local undertaking, and those profits do not go to Chicago or some other distant point.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What about the consumers?


Frank Exton Lennard: That is my problem, not yours. I have more consumers in my riding than you have in the whole province of Manitoba.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It is only in your mind. You do not care about them, anyway.


Frank Exton Lennard: I am speaking for the man who helped to carry the load during the depression. As the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson) said, when there is a strike it is the small local merchant who carries the load. In the last great depression the small merchant carried many families while the breadwinners were out of work.
I say to the Minister of Justice that these amendments of his are just one example of the things he and his colleagues have done this session that would not have been tolerated several years ago. In my opinion this government lacks the experience, guidance and political wisdom of a recent prime minister. In conclusion I protest against the amendments, and I do so on behalf of the people who, as I said before, are the backbone of every community, and especially on behalf of those small business people operating within the riding of Wentworth.
(Translation):


Mr. J. O. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to take part in this debate. First of all, I congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the members of the cabinet for having introduced a bill which will be passed, I hope, by a large majority.
I am speaking today on behalf of the electors of Russell and also as a small general merchant, as a small retailer with thirty-five years of experience, seven as manager of

a store and twenty-eight as owner. I say, and truly so, that I am a general merchant since we sell drugs, groceries, hardware, dry goods, all kinds of building materials, feed, farm implements, trucks, tractors and jewelry, rings and watches. In other words we sell everything from pins to a truck, a tractor or bulldozer, goods worth from five cents to $25,000.
I can therefore claim a fair amount of familiarity with the retailer's problems. I must say that the position taken by our friends of the opposition does not surprise me in the least, because I have been following their policy for over twenty-five years. They have not changed. In fact I believe they are getting less and less serious; we all remember that they repeatedly stated, between 1945 and 1949, that we should do away with all controls. At that time, the Liberal government deemed it wise to remove controls gradually as the supply became sufficient to meet the consumers' demand. Yet since 1949, that same group has been asking the government to reimpose controls which they have themselves condemned.
During the last session, we have been criticized for doing nothing to check inflation. When legislation was introduced to curb the extravagant amount of credit granted on items, most of which were not essential to the population's well-being, this helpful legislation was again criticized, although it had greatly reduced the price of certain goods, especially automobiles, refrigerators as well as a large quantity of other goods. I think I know something about this since, in my store, I have a pretty complete line of goods for sale. I never fail to advise people not to go too deeply into debt because, as everyone knows, it is always the less well off that suffer most since their creditors force them to pay up, even though they might thereby lose all they have.
Right now we listen to the Conservatives upholding price maintenance in the name of the small retailer. Come, my friends, let us be more serious about this! You wish to protect the financier, the manufacturer, the wholesaler, the chain store operator. More than that, you want to turn one small group into the dictators of Canadian trade and make the small retailers their slaves. Should you succeed we would merely be the distributors for that group which would henceforth bend us to their will. Again the little people would be duped. In this way combines and trusts would grow more numerous and powerful and the retail trade of this

country, in the very near future, would be controlled and directed by a few hundred individuals.
No, Mr. Speaker. I submit that the small retailer like myself, whether he is a general merchant or a grocer, is one of those who have done very great service to Canada. The small shopkeeper is his customer's friend. Always ready to serve him honestly, he lives with him and is at all times prepared to be of service. He helps his community in all its social assistance activities, does his very utmost to improve his town or city and works in the interests of both workers and farmers. His outlook being such, he therefore does not want to be compelled to make a higher profit than he thinks is fitting; he is capable of obeying the laws of the land but he is opposed to the dictatorship of certain sections of society.
Mr. Speaker, retail price maintenance is harmful to 95 per cent of the people of Canada, even to a great many of those who are in favour of it. It allows too large profits to be made. People are much more intelligent than our Conservative friends seem to think.
When the margin of profit is too wide, the buyer realizes it and cuts down his purchases. The manufacturer is unable to sell his goods: that is against the interests of the industrialists themselves since it leads to unemployment. The people who, due to circumstances, are compelled to buy those goods pay too much; they are taken advantage of and that leads to a rise in the cost of living.
The small merchant who is compelled to sell certain goods at fixed prices does not dare reduce his prices for fear of not being permitted to buy other supplies. On the other hand the large stores, due to their purchasing power, are much more independent; if the manufacturer refuses to sell them his products he risks losing a large customer and he knows quite well that this large store can buy elsewhere. Furthermore, the large retailers advertise much through the medium of catalogues, radio, newspapers, etc. They advertise other goods which draw the customers and are thus able to sell their wares at fixed prices. Customers are allowed discounts on certain goods when purchasing such and such an article sold at a set price. Most often these are items the customer could easily do without for the time being.
Combines Investigation Act
No, Mr. Speaker, the small retailer is not asking for any favours. All he wants is to be treated the same as others; he wants to do business unfettered. Why should the manufacturer treat him so unfairly. Why should he grant the large store discounts of 10, 15 and even 25 per cent more than is given the small retailer?
I would not mind an additional 2 to 5 per cent discount, since it does cost a little less to sell and deliver in large quantities, but there should never be more than a 5 per cent difference between the small retailer and the large retailer. From the information made available to us it is clear that the small retailer sells the greater part of the manufacturer's production and it is through him that both manufacturers and wholesalers make their profits.
The small retailer should be the one to be assured of reasonable protection on the part of manufacturers. If the latter continue to protect more and more chain stores of every description, department stores and all types of establishments with great purchasing power, they will soon find themselves at the mercy of the operators of these stores who will dictate to them the price which they are willing to pay, will make them produce at a loss, thus forcing them to cut their employees' salaries or close shop altogether. These large retailers will then have their own way with the manufacturers, the small retailers and the consumers of this country. They will thus tell us what to do, while continuing to exploit us.
I leave to our friends, the Tories, the task of defending their friends, these few millionaires who think only of increasing their profits but forget that Canadians are not so easily deceived.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask my government to continue, as in the past, to protect the interests of the less privileged people, who cannot defend themselves as well as others. I take this opportunity of inviting all Canadians to make a still greater effort to increase production of essential commodities, not only to meet the needs of every Canadian but also to enable us to help the people of less fortunate countries than our beautiful Canada. We will thus help fight inflation and assist people of countries less privileged than ours. This would draw upon us the gifts of divine Providence, permit us to check communism and contribute to increase the respect of other peoples for Canadians.
In conclusion, I say that we will not only prove that we have a dignified and great

Combines Investigation Act Prime Minister, but that the whole Canadian people is following his example, and wants to see Canada prosperous, while helping to Ensure .prosperity in other countries.
(Text):


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate I have seen a number of lawyers and others metaphorically donning their gowns and getting in behind the counters. Because prior to coming here I had 25 years of business experience, I should like to give the house some of my impressions, gathered out of that experience, as to the effectiveness of this legislation. I was in a business where we acted as manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, a rather unique position. We endeavoured to establish our retail prices by quite extensive advertising. We found that some retailers we supplied broke our retail prices. In all the years I was irx business we did not do a single thing by way of reprisal against any of those people because in my mind-although I did not know it; I never inquired-I would have thought that it was against the law. I think we would be much safer in this country if we always have regard to this fact, that when a seller disposes of an article to a buyer the seller has severed his connection with that article; and when a person owns an article he has a perfect right to do with it as he sees fit.
I am supporting this legislation not because I think it is going to have any large-scale effect on the cost of living. I do not think it will roll back our inflationary trends very far, but I am supporting it because I think that security and not initiative has become the first consideration of too many business firms in this country for their own good. There has been a portrayal on the other side of the house that this is going to result in harsh and bitter times for retailers. I do not believe they can produce any evidence to that effect at all. I will tell you what I think it will do. Because I believe there are going to be cut prices in some lines, I think it is going to result in the greatest stimulation of sales in this country in the last year. That is what I jhink will happen.
Our state of business is not determined by .egislation such as is involved in this bill. The state of business is determined by the fantastic ability of a public when aroused to do without. That is how it is arranged. So-called good times in business occur when a man says to himself: "I must buy this article today because I think it will cost more tomorrow." Recessions in business occur when a man says: "I will put off buying this today because

I think it will be cheaper tomorrow". Buying patterns are the result of a great measure of mass psychology in people. You get great masses of people who say: "We had better wait a while and we will buy more cheaply." Those are the things that affect business and always will affect business.
One of the recent phenomena in business is the growth of business associations. I do not like to speak about conventions, because a great many of the conventions that are held today are the veritable parliaments of the industries concerned and they do a very great deal of good to industry; but almost everybody today is having a convention, and some of them in the most peculiar places, the farther away the better. I know where they grew up. They grew up in the good times we have had in the last ten years in this country, and many of them have developed because the instigators knew that first Ilsley and now Abbott would be paying for them. I feel there is this feeling on the part of some of those who are heading these conventions, that we are going to be able to be more secure in our business with possibly less effort than we have had in the past. In the old days you used to say that of every one hundred businesses that were formed, seventy-five were going to be out of business in five years. That is a thing which the businessman today is trying to avoid. He does not want to take any more risks than he has to.
There is a great demand in this country for individual security, and it is natural today. I think there is an attempt in the country to obtain business security and the security of corporations. I have this idea, that were that to be guaranteed by any means it would probably mean the denial of security to the individual. I believe that a number of the consequences and results that have flowed from any industrial associations constitute a most disquieting and indeed dangerous phenomenon in our recent industrial development. I am not going to say that the work of all industrial associations is wrong. I think the exchange of credit information, for instance, results in a social good so long as a blacklist is not compiled out of that exchange.
I have seen-and I must say I saw some evidence of it in the committee that sat here-the development of what I term a new aristocracy of business, and I do not think it is either a sound or a good thing. The businessman today,. in his relations with his government, apparently does not want to come down to see government. He has intercessors here. They are a group of high-priced legal help, groups of high-priced accountants and professional advocates of special causes,

and a number of them were before that committee. At the best they had nothing more than a superficial knowledge of what they were talking about. The best advocate for business I saw there was the old gentleman Hougham, who is now retired in the province of British Columbia, a man with a great deal of experience of his own in business. He was accorded by the group that brought him there some ten minutes, I think, but their lawyer who said he had intensively studied this subject for two weeks spent a day before the committee. Well, I think that business will do itself a great deal more credit if in its relations with government it sends practising businessmen to see governments instead of professional help such as these. I seem to read that there is some attempt here to assure profit without risk, without too much conflict and indeed without too much effort. That has not been the history of business on this continent. I think it is socially unsound for business to attempt to ensure profits upon that basis. I believe it has to be prepared to take risks, because it has built itself on that basis. Indeed, this continent has built itself on that basis. My friends of the C.C.F. opposite will not agree with me, as they do not think there is such a thing as free markets any more. I realize that today free markets are compromised by the situation that exists throughout the world, but .the closer we keep to free markets the more secure we will be. I am quite certain it will be a better day for business if business returns to the free competitive market.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this debate has already brought forward suggestions that might make it very difficult for anyone listening in the gallery, who was unaware of the previous events which brought this bill before parliament, to understand just why it is that we are discussing this bill if we accept the government's statement as to the reason for its being brought forward. Hon. members know that this legislation was indicated in the speech from the throne as a measure the government was prepared1 to adopt to deal with the inflation about which they had assured the people that they shared the public concern.
Perhaps there are those who might wonder why it is that only now, at this stage of the session, we are dealing with this very important legislation. That would be natural, unless they had been kept in touch with what has taken place. Anyone who asked the government why this legislation that is to deal with inflation has not yet been disposed of would doubtless receive the reply that the
Combines Investigation Act government thought it wise to appoint a committee made up of members of the House of Commons and of the Senate to consider this matter and make recommendations to the house. In form that answer might be justified; in reality it offers no explanation at all.
There is no hon. member of this house who does not know perfectly well that this bill was decided upon in its present form, and that the committee was only an intermediate step to give some appearance of bringing members of the house and of the Senate in contact with this problem before it was presented. The setting up of the committee was a sham. I am indebted to an hon. member who spoke last night, an hon. member who ordinarily supports the government, for coining the expression minister of make-believe. I hope I shall not be criticized if on this occasion I accept that very apt term which was applied by a Liberal member to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), the minister of make-believe.


Mr. Studer:: Why not get something
original?


George Alexander Drew: I could not help hearing the
highly original words that came from my right rear, but I prefer to deal with the subject under discussion. The minister gave reasons why this important legislation should go before a committee. It went before that committee. It must be remembered that there was also placed before the committee an interim report-I emphasize the word "interim"-which had been sent forward by the MacQuarrie committee at the request of the Minister of Justice. It made certain arbitrary findings, and those were available to all members of the house before the house and Senate committee was appointed.
Not one word of evidence was appended to that report; not one single statement of fact interpreting the evidence before the MacQuarrie committee was made available. When an effort was made to bring before the committee of the house and the Senate the evidence which had been available to the MacQuarrie committee, that opportunity was denied. We had nothing but the statement of the MacQuarrie committee as to what they thought should be done. Therefore the committee of the house and the Senate had before it an incomplete report without supporting evidence. We as a house are now called upon to deal with the recommendations of a committee whose work was incomplete and which was not permitted to obtain evidence which would have placed this matter in some objective form before the House of Commons and the Senate.
2224	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act
Even if any member was predisposed to support in general principle the idea of making it illegal to enter into any arrangement in regard to the retail prices of goods of various kinds, I suggest that a sense of responsibility to the supreme authority of this House of Commons, this high court of parliament, would indicate to him that we should not take action of this kind, having such sweeping consequences, when we have had so little evidence, I might say no real evidence, before us upon which to act.
Others describe this as the high court of parliament. We are members of that high court of parliament. As members of that high court of parliament we have a duty to maintain its dignity and its traditions. We have a duty to maintain public respect for the procedure by which the laws of this country are enacted. No matter what emotional approach there may be to a subject of this kind; no matter what inclination there may be to simplify the manner in which we shall deal with this extremely important question of inflation, no member of this house should be prepared to cast his vote in support of something which will have a tremendous effect upon the whole established commercial structure of Canada without being able to say: I have heard the evidence and on that evidence I am convinced that this is what we should do. To hear some of the arguments that have been made-arguments, I repeat, unsupported by evidence-one would think that the passing of this bill into law is something of immense importance to the consumer. Yet within the past few minutes we have heard an hon. member, who referred to his long business experience and who said that he proposes to support the measure, tell us nevertheless that he is not supporting it because he thinks it will have much effect in reducing prices or lowering the cost of living but, if I understand what he said, in the belief that completely free competition is a better economic process than some measure of restraint such as has become established in the country over the years.
That is an understandable argument, but I would point out it is one that relates entirely to economics and trading practices, and that not one word the hon. member spoke suggested that in his mind there was anything in the nature of a criminal offence in trade arrangements of this kind. When the hon. member expressed his opinion as a businessman that the measure was not going to have any substantial effect on prices he was repeating exactly what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said earlier in this session. If we accept the opinion of the Prime Minister, if we accept the opinion of the hon. member
fMr. Drew.]

who has just spoken and who bases his opinion upon his years of business training, then we are not discussing something which is going to have much effect in stemming the tide of inflation. Yet it was in that light that this measure was placed before us.
Hon. members will recall that when on more than one occasion during the course of this session the Prime Minister was urged to take some steps to deal with inflation and the cost of living, which is threatening the comfort, security and happiness of so many of our people, his answer was that the only measure contemplated during the course of this session to deal with that problem was the one now before us. Yet by his own statement, and from statements made by other members who support him, it is not anticipated that it is going to effect any substantial reduction in prices.
After all, there is statistical support for that view. One of the businesses which would be most affected by the complete abolition of agreements as to prices for various articles would be the drug business. That has been quite frankly admitted. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and others have recognized it. Therefore it seems to me that certain figures should be before the house to indicate what has been happening in the drug business compared with other retail marketing, to show just how serious this is. The last figures available as to the increase in items sold in drug stores compared with the period of 1935-39, which is used as the base period for the cost of living index, are the figures for January 15, 1951. It may be that the bureau of statistics has later figures, and if so I would be very pleased if they were placed before the house, but these are the last figures I have been able to obtain.
They show that in relation to the base period of 1935-39 some 319 drug store items, taken as representing the broad basis of this business, had risen to 122-2 compared with the figure of 100 for the base period I have mentioned. The nearest figure I have as to the cost of living index is that for February 1, 1951, and that was 175-2 compared with the figure of 100 for the same base figure of 1935-39. Thus we see that while the cost of living index had risen by 75-2 points up to that time from the base period, the increase in the cost of 319 representative items sold in drug stores was 22-2 points.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Were they price-maintained or not price-maintained.


George Alexander Drew: These are price-maintained. I
point out that from these figures you will see

that these things, which were sold under a system that is being put before the house as something evil and dangerous, rose in cost to the people who use them by substantially less than one-third of the extent that the requirements of our daily life, which are included in the cost of living index, rose during the same period. It seems to me that if the government really wants to tackle the cost of living, then no matter what they do on this measure they should be tackling it some place else. If the government want to tackle the cost of living they can tackle it in several other places. I think I heard the hon. member, whom I cannot identify by the sound of his voice, say "Where?" I will remind him of the place where I suggested many months ago they could make the first and most effective saving, and that was in the cost of government and the public business of this country. Recently we had some very conclusive evidence from the Auditor General that there were ways in which this government could save money. We have seen many ways in which the government could save money. Why, this government has itself discovered ways it can save money. Unless I am mistaken it has found that in handling transactions under the Veterans Land Act it is now very satisfactory-to have solicitors employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs do that work. Only a few days ago a return was tabled showing a figure of $345,000 paid to someone whose face is not yet unfamiliar to members of the House of Commons.


William Earl Rowe: It cost more than that, probably.


George Alexander Drew: No doubt. And there were other substantial payments for this special kind of work which, strangely enough, seemed to be closely associated with interests of other than strictly legal minds, which are in common with the present government.


Mr. Mutch:: That is hardly your best effort.


William Earl Rowe: It was not your legal employees' best effort, either.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite prepared to let the hon. member who has spoken express either publicly or privately his opinion as to whether the government got its dollar's worth for the money it spent in that way.
In any event it has come to the conclusion that there are ways money can be saved in that type of transaction. The government has found other ways that money can be saved. But I am still hoping that at some time we will have the same kind of success we have already had, partially, in connection with defence expenditures, and that after
Combines Investigation Act continuing the argument we will get a committee or a commission to study the cost of the organization of government. I am not in any doubt as to what it will be found possible to do by way of savings at that time.
But, to answer still further the question of how this can be done, I would say that the place the government can best tackle this problem is in its taxation. This bill is not put before the house with any thought that it is going to reduce the cost of living substantially, or that it is going to halt inflation. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said so. The hon. member who spoke immediately before me said so. That is not the reason. There are other reasons to which I shall refer. If the government had any idea of trying to reduce the cost of living at this time it would have brought before the house a budget of some kind which would have made it possible to remove that 25 per cent increase in the sales tax that was unnecessarily introduced this spring, a tax which is directly inflationary in all its applications. It would also have removed those special excise taxes it introduced, and would have removed some of the credit restrictions it put into effect this spring-not all of them, but some of the severe credit restrictions that have had such a serious effect upon building, and upon housing, and upon other matters that are directly related to the comfort and housing of our people.
When I say that, let me point out that some measure of restraint on credit was highly desirable, and to the extent that it was desirable we would certainly commend it. But in case we have any of those very lightly-made remarks about the fact that we suggest something, and then say why it should not have been done, may I point out that the government itself has made it quite clear that it believes there is some maximum point beyond which taxation or restrictions cannot go without defeating its own purpose. That was the very argument made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) when he introduced the budget last spring. At the time it was suggested that an additional tax be imposed on some articles that are already heavily taxed, he said that while it had been agreed that it was a good thing to tax those particular articles, there was a point beyond which you could not go.
What has happened since that time has amply demonstrated at least the correctness of the general observation made by the Minister of Finance at that time. We have seen in the case of cigarettes that there is certainly a point beyond which you cannot go in,

Combines Investigation Act on the one hand, collecting taxes and, on the other, continuing to have the respect of the public for the laws of the land. We have seen these taxes create smuggling on a scale never before known in this country. We have seen Canadian workmen deprived of work in the tobacco factories of this country because the excise taxes have gone so high that, with all the chances of penalties involved, it has now become profitable to smuggle cigarettes into the country and undersell the domestic product. We have had arguments in the house which have suggested that this does not meet with the entire disapproval of every member in the house. Nevertheless I believe most hon. members think it is desirable to retain respect for our laws; and if for no other reason it would have been' wise to place before us a budget which would have made it possible to revise these taxes which are causing the situation I have described,
But, quite apart from that situation, the government could have taken anti-inflationary steps and could have tackled effectively the problem of the cost of living, if it had removed that 25 per cent increase in the sales tax, and removed some of the unnecessary excise taxes on things which most people find it necessary to buy.
No, there is some other reason for this bill. The bill is, in fact, just a red herring to try to distract attention from the fact that a government, which indicated that it was just as much concerned about inflation as was the general public, was really prepared to do nothing during this session. The measure, of course, may have some other purpose. A very interesting reason for the desire of the government to force this through without hearing what could be termed complete evidence is suggested in the Financial Post of December 15. Under the heading "Nice Timing," the editorial states:
The government at Ottawa seems to have inherited some of the canniness for timing which the late Mr. King possessed.
Rightly or wrongly, the banning of resale price maintenance will probably be law by Christmas. Anything which the parliamentary committee uncovered had no effect either in changing government plans or in dissuading it from acting hastily.
January is usually the month for sales. This year with physical volume of retail sales probably below last year, there may be more than usual. The traditional price reductions should come at just about the same time as the banning of RPM takes effect. If there are price reductions, to which factor does the government expect the voters to give the credit, the normal after Christmas sales to clear out inventories or to the banning of r.p.m.? You guess.
I might say that the words "you guess" are included in the Financial Post article. I would not use such peremptory terms to you, Mr. Speaker, even following so suggestive an
[Mr. Drew.l

article as that. Those words appear in a very pithy article in a publication which I think is unanimously respected by all members of this house for its objective approach to public problems, even though they may not entirely agree with it at all times. The minister of make-believe-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Never made as good a thing as that.


George Alexander Drew: No, but you are hoping to. The minister who has made such a colossal and fantastic failure of dealing with the Combines Investigation Act, which is now on the books, hopes to be able to make the public believe that what he is doing on this occasion really will have some effect. Instead of these being January sales, at least an attempt will be made to leave the impression with the public that, after all, the period of Santa Claus is past but these are Garson's sales. We do not know what costume will be adopted. The season of Santa Claus will be gone, but the season of the minister of make-believe will have come. As the minister has said, in the past he never thought up anything as good as that. It may be that someone else suggested it to him.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Financial Post.


George Alexander Drew: The fact is that everyone here knows there will be January sales. There have been for as long as I can remember, and I assume that there will be for some time to come. In the very nature of things goods that have been on sale at Christmas, and which are carried over, are not kept on the shelves. These goods are offered at lower prices to stimulate sales at a time when people's pockets are just a little empty, and when some inducement is regarded as desirable to persuade them to buy.
Perhaps the Financial Post had some reason for believing that this was correct. What reason is there? Why could not the joint committee have sat through in the ordinary way? Why should we not at this time be passing a resolution empowering that committee to continue sitting between sessions to hear evidence? It did not complete the hearing of evidence, and no one will seriously suggest that it did. Why are we being asked to rush this legislation through? First of all, because this is the only measure the government has offered to the public in answer to its demand that something be done about the cost of living. Moreover the government is well aware that, if further evidence were heard, a great deal would be put before the committee to raise a question as to whether or not this is the wisest course.

Reference has been made to an editorial in the Kingston Whig-Standard. I propose to put part of it on the record, because although some members may have received a copy of it, possibly all have not read it. I also am not forgetful of the fact that there are those outside of the house who read Hansard, and who may be interested in an analysis of this situation which in no way reflects upon any member of the house. It does indicate the opinion of a newspaper, in this case published by a prominent and highly respected Liberal who lives in Kingston. I shall quote the last two paragraphs of that editorial of December 12, 1951:
It is significant, we think, that only one group so far, if we may judge from the evidence submitted to date to the parliamentary committee, is wholeheartedly in favour of outright abolition of resale price fixing. That group is composed of a number of mass buyers and sellers of merchandise- firms which may be described as the giants in Canadian merchandising. Their approval of abolition strongly suggests that the fears of the small merchandisers are well founded, and that the latter would be at least severely and unfairly handicapped by legislation which would permit huge rivals to sell at a fractional profit or even at a loss. Since the practice of using "loss leaders" or sharply cut prices to swell the number of visitors to stores is by no means uncommon, the position of the small merchant becomes apparent.
The entire question of resale price fixing is definitely not a simple one, as we noted above. It is complex, and its very complexity should be sufficient to indicate that a simple solution like abolition will not solve the problem. For our part, we think the government could very well forget about resale price fixing for the moment, and concentrate upon the strengthening and rigid enforcement of the laws forbidding price-fixing by combines. If these are effective in assuring unrestricted competition, there would seem to be very little to be feared from resale price fixing as it is now practised.
Although I am reminded that this editorial has been sent to many of the members, it was quite evident to me that they had not all read it. In fact I find some of them reading it even at this moment.


Auguste Maltais: Did the hon. member read the editorial in the Globe and Mail?


George Alexander Drew: I would be very happy to do so.


Auguste Maltais: Why does he not quote the first two lines of the second paragraph?


George Alexander Drew: I shall be very happy to have the hon. member read into the record the whole of that editorial after I have finished speaking. May I say that the hon. member might be interested in seeing the editorials that have appeared generally, in addition to those which he is reading at the moment, which have suggested that regardless of the merits this is a subject which should be dealt with more carefully than it is being dealt with at this time. Right across this
Combines Investigation Act country there has been a general expression of opinion that we should not be suddenly tearing apart a commercial structure, which has been built up over the years, upon the basis of an incomplete report from the MacQuarrie committee, an incomplete report from the committee of the house and Senate, and incomplete reports from earlier times.
In that respect may I refer to something that was said in this house yesterday. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) was speaking on this subject, and when he spoke I could not help thinking that he was trying to make the best he could of an extraordinarily unpalatable task. In fact I should like to know the real opinion of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano in regard to the complete and over-all banning of agreements of this kind. Of course, as will be recalled by hon. members who heard his speech yesterday, that was not what he was dealing with. He was dealing mostly with what he described as the Tory party. I must admit there probably was a certain measure of satisfaction in the applause he received from the Liberal members on his own side. They found something to applaud that was not related to this bill. Not many of them really applauded this bill, no matter how they vote. In this gathering which provides, for the exchange of ideas, opportunities that are not confined to the floor of this house, there are not many hon. members who do not know perfectly well that no matter what the vote may be, there is not applause for this bill on the part of a large percentage of the Liberal members. I for one greatly commend those Liberal members who have already spoken and who have expressed their opposition to this measure in terms which I have heard other Liberal members express in private conversation.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: How many?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Lots of them.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Name them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Lots of them.


George Alexander Drew: However, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano really warmed up to his subject, and he had a good time. In this season of the year no one should be in any way displeased with the fact that he had a good time, no matter whether his remarks found complete approval by other members of the house; and of course, as I have already said, his speech provided the members on his side of the house an opportunity to do some applauding that was not in any way related to the bill itself. But in his exuberance and his enthusiasm for carrying out his selfappointed task of tracing certain imaginary

Combines Investigation Act history, which he had created, of the Conservative party, I must say that he wandered a little bit from reality on one or two occasions. In order to demonstrate the fact that Mr. McGregor had been called as a witness by a member of the Conservative party, that approval of Mr. McGregor had been expressed in this house and, apparently -though that was not said-that we must therefore of necessity accept anything he put forward, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano had this to say, and I am quoting from yesterday's Hansard at page 2152:
On this question, the greatest authority in Canada on combines, the man who has beaten them, came before this committee and said that the abolition of resale price maintenance will do just that. That man of course is Mr. McGregor, who was combines commissioner for 25 years. He was requested by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), at page 670 of Hansard as follows:
"Let us bring in Mr. McGregor because I am sure that if his lips are unbridled, if he comes in unhobbled by any consideration other than to help the committee, he will make some revelations that will be most interesting and I am sure most helpful in suggesting effective amendments to the act."
A little later on he said:
"He is the number one man in this business if we want to get at the facts."
Then-and I am still quoting from Hansard -I made this remark:
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of the record I think it is proper that it should be pointed out that the quotation that has been read with its customary clarity related to the argument that this committee should be dealing with the whole question of the combines act and not with this limited subject.
Then the hon. member for Coast-Capilano is reported in Hansard as replying-and I might say that he replied with his customary courtesy-as follows:
The leader of the opposition as usual is wrong, because this quotation is taken from the earlier part of his remarks before he developed the theme about having a complete combines investigation. Having established this in the first part then he went into the theme about having a complete investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the fact that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was not reading the whole of Hansard-, he probably was reading from a typed extract, and that might explain the situation. But the hon. member for Lake Centre had been emphasizing that day, as he has emphasized at other times during the course of this and other sessions prior to November 2, that we need a general revision of the Combines Investigation Act. Every hon. member who has followed the debates is well aware of that fact. During the whole of the time I have been in the house the hon. member for Lake Centre has been insisting that the Combines Investigation Act be amended so it will be an effective instrument to deal with those offences which it was intended to deal with.


In the speech on November 2 to which the hon. member for Coast-Capilano referred, the hon. member for Lake Centre several times repeated: Let us review the act. Is there anything unjust in that? And he went on to indicate that he thought there were many things that must be dealt with, that penalties must be imposed that would make this act effective, and that there must be provisions which would make it a truly effective act in every way. Those remarks were not covered by the reference that was before us. Those remarks would have had no meaning whatever if they had been confined simply to this limited reference.
Since the hon. member for Coast-Capilano saw fit to quote part of what the hon. member for Lake Centre said, I should like to quote a little bit more, because it explains why there must be a certain measure of amusement in the minds of most hon. members when they listen almost with awe to the minister of make-believe and note the atmosphere of sanctity with which he seeks to surround the figure of Mr. McGregor. I think a quotation from what the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) said at that time will indicate just what it was that he was referring to, and why there is some surprise at the extent to which the minister of make-believe is now prepared to follow unquestionably any recommendation that may be made. I am quoting from page 670 of Hansard, which was the page referred to by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair):
Let us bring Mr. McGregor before the committee. We might even have the minister give evidence after his statement in Vancouver when he said that Mr. McGregor did not understand the finer things, did not understand the representations that had been made to the flour milling corporations. Let us have them both there and then we shall see who will be made a monkey of, then we shall see who will go on whose head. Let us bring in Mr. McGregor because I am sure that if his lips are unbridled, if he comes in unhobbled by any consideration other than to help the committee, he will make some revelations that will be most interesting and I am sure most helpful in suggesting effective amendments to the act.
I am not going to continue further as my time is up. If this committee is to be set up let it be a committee of both houses with powers wider than the narrow and confined one comprised in the resolution. Let there be representatives of the producers and consumers, and Mr. McGregor. He is the number one man in this business if we want to get at the facts. If the government is anxious and desirous of doing something to mobilize the opinion of the House of Commons, then widen the ambit of the resolution. Let us not have the carefully restricted term of reference, the obviously carefully restricted one of the resolution. Let us have one wide enough to enable the committee to make recommendations concerning not only resale price maintenance but the entire field of combine and monopoly legislation.

These terms are clear enough, Mr. Speaker. And may I point out simply, so the record will be clear, that the words that were quoted by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano-
He is the number one man in this business if we want to get at the facts . . .
That was the point where I interpolated; and they did come after his very clear demand that there be a committee to cover the whole field.
Let me then come to something else that was said yesterday by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano when he was doing his special pleading on this subject. I am quoting from what he said at page 2144 of Hansard, and this was the time when he was really under a nice head of steam. This was at the time the hon. members, who had been sitting on their hands in a sense of frustration because so many of them had found this legislation unpalatable up to that time, began to find reasons for applauding when, to his own satisfaction at any rate, he whaled the stuffing out of the Conservative party.


Mr. Ward:: And did a good job.


George Alexander Drew: Of course not paying much
attention to the bill itself. There is a point in what the hon. member had to say which should not be passed unnoticed, because I fancy he was given an incomplete brief on the subject. I quote from page 2144:
It is true-
I should like to go back a bit because the hon. member had this to say:
I should like to start off by reminding hon. members that the principal purpose of this legislation now before the house is to further strengthen the Combines Investigation Act.
Apparently at the time the speech from the throne was written that was not the view that was held, but this now seems to be the party line, at least. I continue:
We on this continent are all fairly familiar with the history and the story of combines legislation. With the great growth of industrial power in the United States, combines, trusts and cartels, formed by powerful groups of selfish people in order to exploit the consumer to the utmost, began to be established. President Teddy Roosevelt around the turn of the century established the first anticombine legislation. The vicious practice of combines spread to this country and we were the second country in the world to establish, in 1925, under a Liberal government, anti-combine legislation. We have a good record with regard to the breaking up and the prosecution of these illegal combines, monopolies and cartels; in fact, we had a record second to no other nation in the world.
Might I point out how discreet and with what great caution the hon. member for Coast-Capilano said:
We had a record second to no other nation in the world.
Combines Investigation Act
That was before the flour milling report.


James Sinclair: A typographical error.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no. I think this was one point where, perhaps inadvertently but nevertheless very wisely, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano showed appreciation of the importance of words, and he said in fact: "We had a record second to no other nation in the world". I will come back to that because I think perhaps we had a fairly good record up until the flour milling combine report. I continue to quote from Hansard:
It is true last spring there was a delay in the publication of the milling report-*


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: That really is a masterpiece of understatement. I continue:
It is true last spring there was a delay in the publication of the milling report-
I am sure-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Eleven days, to be exact.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no; I hope the parliamentary assistant to the parliamentary assistant will obtain better information as to that.


John Lambert Gibson: Why is he kept under a bushel?


George Alexander Drew: I continue:
It is true last spring there was a delay in the publication of the milling report-
I think the hon. member for Coast-Capilano forgot that the delay had extended back to the previous December.


Some hon. Members:: It was 1949.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; December, 1949.


George Harris Hees: Just two years out.


George Alexander Drew: I continue:
It is true last spring there was a delay in the publication of the milling report, between the time of the report by the commissioner and the presentation in the house, because of a difference of opinion with the wartime prices and trade board, as to what undertakings they had given the millers under wartime price control.
This was the point where the hon. member was really working well. He goes on:
But in all the records of the twenty-seven investigations of the combines investigators I would recall to the attention of hon. members that there are five reports which have never been published, five investigations made under the regime of the Bennett government. There was the combine in the manufacture of radio tubes in 1931, unpublished;-
Hansard does not record the applause at that point. I go on:
the manufacturing of fruit baskets in Ontario in 1932, unpublished; the distribution of coal in eastern Canada, 1933, unpublished; the manufacture of rubber footwear in Canada, 1934, unpublished, and the sale of gasoline in Ontario, 1934. unpublished.
2230	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act
If Hansard had recorded the applause, as the reports of speeches sometimes do, there would at this point be loud applause and desk thumping on the part of the Liberal members. But I can only conclude that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, who was making this highly political speech at that time, a speech which may have hidden some of his own private thoughts about the advisability of complete banning of this long-established commercial practice, either forgot what the facts were or had been given an incomplete brief from which to work. Of course this is not in any way as simple as it seems. I think in this case the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) will recall the very substantial change that had taken place at a later date in regard to this act which was introduced, as has been pointed out, by the Liberal government and which remained substantially in that form until some years later.
Those reports that have been referred to by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) were not commissioner's reports; they were not reports similar to the one to which he referred when he spoke about this matter as being slightly delayed. It is important to remember the great difference which has taken place in the act as it indicates the evolution that has occurred and why we regard it as being so important that there should be a general review at this time of the Combines Investigation Act to bring the evolution further still more in keeping with our changing commercial and trading practices in this country.
The act at the time the hon. member mentions called for an entirely different procedure. I might say that it was not 1925, as the hon. member stated, but 1923 when it was introduced. That act placed certain responsibilities upon the registrar, who was a permanent official and who was Mr. McGregor at the time. The procedure followed at the time the five reports he has mentioned were prepared was that the registrar would make a preliminary investigation. He then reported to the minister who examined the report. The report was made to the minister simply for the purpose of consideration. If it was regarded by the minister as justifying that course, the minister would appoint a commissioner or commissioners to conduct an investigation. When the commissioner or commissioners had made their report, then and then only would the provisions of section 28 of the act as it was apply as to publication. That provision was quite similar to the provision which has been carried forward and which applies at this time to the reports of the commissioner under the act.


The five reports that were tabled were not reports that called for publication. That was the act introduced in 1923. I simply mention that because an erroneous impression might be left on the record and someone reading Hansard might get the idea that the reports to which the hon. member has referred were similar to that one which, to use his terms, was slightly delayed last spring.


James Sinclair: In view of the fact that the
hon. gentleman has questioned the accuracy of my statement, I wonder if he will permit just one question? Is he aware that all the ten earlier investigations made under the Liberal party between 1925 and 1930 were published despite the fact that, as he says, the law did not demand publication, and that all the eleven reports made after the Liberals returned to power from 1935 on were also published? It was only the five reports on combines prepared under the Bennett regime which were not published. It is quite true that there was no law requiring publication at that time, but I point out that the Liberal government published all their reports while the five reports listed here under the Bennett regime were not published.


George Alexander Drew: I am very happy to hear this
plea on behalf of the Liberal party. The fact remains that the procedure was entirely different and it would be most improper to leave on the record the impression that these were reports which called for publication under the law as it then stood.


James Sinclair: We published ours but you
did not publish yours.


George Alexander Drew: This government does a great
many things of which we entirely disapprove. So far as that is concerned, may I suggest that there may have been excellent reasons for not publishing the reports when publication was not demanded. We believe, and I think most members of the government believe, that business should have some chance to be heard and be given an opportunity to state its case. The mecnanism that is now provided approaches this problem with some idea of giving the business people of this country, as well as others, an opportunity to state their case.
Let us dispose of any suggestion that those other reports were withheld under circumstances in any way similar to those under which the flour milling combines report was withheld. I think the best statement to be found on this subject is contained in the memorandum of resignation of Mr. McGregor, presented to the minister to whom he was

responsible on October 29, 1949. The minister will remember that memorandum because there was a great deal of discussion about it. In fact that memorandum had a good deal to do with smoking out that report. I should like to read the first three paragraphs and part of the fourth of that memorandum of resignation of Mr. McGregor, dated October 29, 1949, as follows:
The principal circumstances which have led me to submit my resignation as commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act can be stated briefly.
First and foremost is my deep concern about certain tendencies that have been apparent in recent months which in my opinion seriously threaten the usefulness of this legislation.
One of the principal remedial measures provided by the Combines Investigation Act is the publication of reports of investigations.
May I emphasize the words that follow:
The withholding for so many months of publication of a report which the act requires shall be made public as soon as possible after its receipt (this is the only instance of the kind in my experience) is one illustration of the tendencies I have in mind.
Closely related to this are the differences of opinion on basic policy that have been revealed in our recent discussions relating to the flour investigation and report.
I am not raising any question of your obvious right and the right of anyone to point out errors in any work I have done. The criticisms made, however, have not been directed particularly to any error of fact in my report but primarily to the policy that was followed. You have expressed the opinion that the inquiry should never have been started.
There is the reason Mr. McGregor resigned; that for the first time in his experience-he had been registrar long before the earlier date mentioned by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano until he became commissioner- there had been a withholding of a report of that kind.
I have mentioned this simply to clear the record which was placed before us yesterday. But, Mr. Speaker, I have also mentioned it for another reason. When we are told that this committee seriously attempted to examine this subject and that it was objective in its approach to this problem, then I would only add that anyone who makes that statement should read the speech made in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), a cheap, tawdry political speech by the member who had been chairman of the committee. Instead of coming here having in mind the responsibility he was called upon to accept as chairman of the committee, he came here and made a tubthumping political speech which doubtless relieved his own feelings and appeared to bring a certain measure of satisfaction to members on the other side who are not too happy about this legislation anyway. But it was not a contribution in keeping with the
Combines Investigation Act consideration deserved by legislation that is going to affect, whether for good or for bad, thousands and thousands of small merchants across the country and those who deal with them.
Again may I say that the speech made last night by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) was another which suggested that perhaps the Financial Post was not so far wrong when it offered its explanation as to why this legislation was held back so long and then, having been held back so long, is now to be put through with such indecent haste. The hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency in his remarks last night was echoing those meaningless and very worn-out propaganda arguments that this was an example of the subservience of the Conservative party to big business. What a preposterous argument when you examine the measure we are considering and the circumstances that surround its presentation to the house.
As was pointed out in earlier speeches and in editorials in papers not unfriendly by any manner of means to this government, the only people who appeared to be anxious to have this legislation passed, so far as the committee was concerned at any rate, were those very big businesses which apparently would stand to gain by the abandonment of these long established practices. I am not going to engage in any exchange of pleasantries about big business or little business. I do say that the little businesses that are close to the people right across this country are the backbone of the commercial life of Canada, but I also say that as Canadians we should not condemn any business simply because of its size. I most earnestly suggest that we recognize that these big businesses have also advanced our commercial practices.
The fact is that we want businesses big and small competing fairly and properly and in the general interest of the public under laws that are in the best interests of the people of Canada. But if there is to be any division on the basis of big business and little business, then most certainly on this occasion the government has aligned itself with big business; and it comes with very bad grace for the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency to pull out these rusty darts and throw them around as loosely as he did last night without any regard to what the real target is and what it is we are really trying to do. If there is any alignment with big business look across the aisle from me now and see where that association lies. Big business? Why, I interpolated a remark last night when the hon.

Combines Investigation Act member for Quebec-Montmorency was speaking in such unflattering terms and using phrases that might very well have been questioned if we had seen fit to do so, and asked if the speech which was being read had been prepared by one of the other hon. members; because I recognize that when it comes to big business there are experts on the government side who are able to speak about this very practice from their own knowledge over many years. I thought perhaps he had been seeking some expert advice and conceivably even had had a few choice phrases prepared which were the product of that long experience in this very activity.
We certainly are considering something that affects every Canadian today; and the consideration with which one should start every approach to this problem is the public interest. Is it in the public interest or is it not? If it is in the public interest then it should be supported. If it is not in the public interest then most certainly steps should be taken to deal with that subject. I have already pointed out that with the increases in the cost of living there have not been proportionate increases in drug prices. I think it will be realized by all hon. members that those things covered by agreements of this kind are not the things that are included in the cost of living index and are not the first things people have to buy to maintain their homes and the comfort and welfare of their families. I pointed out the difference in 319 drug store items compared with the general cost of living. I pointed out that whereas there had been an increase of 75-2 points in the general cost of living up to January of 1951 there had only been an increase of 22-2 points in these 319 representative items. I wish to correct an answer I made to the minister when he asked if these were all items under agreements. I did not have the note in front of me at the time containing the reference to that point. Of those 319 items, about 50 per cent are on the maintained price basis, and the others are articles of the other kind. But that in no way affects the general argument, because those are items which are in the general drug trade. And if there were any substantial increase it would be reflected in the over-all increase, and of course would be reflected in the general price of these representative items which I have mentioned.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I ask the hon. member if the rate of increase is the same in each of the two parts?


George Alexander Drew: I will be very happy to seek further information. But may I say, without unkindness at all, that I would have thought

that in expounding such a vigorous argument in support of the legislation the minister would have sought, through the bureau of statistics, information in regard to this very subject. It was because I had not any such information that I did my best to obtain it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not know about your 319 articles until about three-quarters of an hour ago.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the minister has just given another very strong reason why we should not be dealing with the bill at this time. Although he tells us it is -so important to pass this legislation, he admits that up until this was mentioned during my speech he did not know anything about the drug items, or what had happened to the cost.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, no. My hon. friend cannot say that. He came into the house this afternoon and said that 319 articles in the drug trade, which he did not attempt to identify, were increased by 22 per cent over the 193539 figure. But he did not identify them. We have no means of checking them with any information we have. I am -simply seeking information concerning a statement which was given wrongly in the first instance, and which the hon. member has now corrected. I am asking him again if he can tell us whether -the increase is uniform in both components of his total figure. If he will get that information, then I say he had no need to pass any remarks about what we have done.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes I had; because the
minister is the one who is advocating the adoption of this measure. On the other hand we are strongly opposing it because the minister has not given us any facts to support his contention. Indeed, he admits he has not got the information. I have used figures, and he will have plenty of opportunity to deal with them later on. I assure him he will have plenty of opportunity.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Answer the question, that is all.


George Alexander Drew: I am saying that just as in other trades representative items are chosen, there are 319 representative items chosen in the drug industry. And I have asked the minister a question, since he indicated that he had the information and did not give it to us, if he would now tell us what -his information is in regard to the increase in drug store items. Would he like to give me the answer now?


Mr. Abbott:: You answer, first.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting exchange because, although I am

on my feet, at the moment the leader of the opposition has the floor. He is making the speech.


George Alexander Drew: I did not put you on your feet.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have asked a question in relation to his speech, and he has given me an incorrect reply. Then I have asked a supplementary question, as to whether he will be good enough to oblige me with the figure he is using and the proper breakdown of it; then I would be more than delighted to deal with the whole subject matter to his satisfaction, I hope, when it is my turn to speak.


George Alexander Drew: So far as giving any incorrect answer, I would point out that in response to a question across the floor, in an exchange of remarks, I gave an answer which I have now correctly placed before the house, and within the same speech. There is nothing incorrect on the record. What I have done is to use 319 representative items. And I suggest that if the minister was properly accepting his responsibility as the minister supporting this measure, and asking us to pass upon it, he should have given us some information which really showed that this was a matter, in this particular type of business, which should be dealt with by legislation of this kind.
Now, so far as this measure is concerned, there is one particular consideration which I have already suggested should always be in our minds. I refer to the public interest. The minister is well aware that in the Combines Investigation Act itself there is an attempt to measure any offence in connection with combines upon the basis of public interest. As he knows, where an offence is created in relation to a combine, there is a reservation in that respect. In that part of the act which defines a combine it makes reference to certain specific things such as:
(a)	limiting facilities for transporting, producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing or dealing, or
(b)	preventing, limiting or lessening manufacture or production, or
(c)	fixing a common price or a resale price, or a common rental, or a common cost of storage or transportation, or
(d)	enchancing the price, rental or cost of article, rental, storage or transportation, or
(e>
preventing or lessening competition in, or substantially controlling within any particular area or district or generally, production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, storage, transportation, insurance or supply, or
(f) otherwise restraining or injuring trade or commerce,
All this comes under the word "combine". And then the section continues:
-or a merger, trust or monopoly, which combination, merger, trust or monopoly has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public, whether consumers, producers or others.
Combines Investigation Act
The interesting words there are "which . . . has operated or is likely to operate to the detriment or against the interest of the public".
Then we come to the Criminal Code, and we find there is a reservation, in somewhat similar language, where it says that it is an offence to "unduly prevent or lessen competition". And that word "unduly" means, and has been interpreted to mean, to an extent that is not reasonable in relation to the public interest. So the consideration has been the public interest. In all these matters that is the thing that has always been borne in mind.
In this particular case there is no such reservation. There is an absolute and complete banning of a system that has grown up over many years and which, with constant extensions, has been operating I should think during the lifetime of everyone in the house, at least to some extent. We all recognize that the practice has been increasing in recent years and has become so deeply embedded in our whole commercial system that, to say the least, we would be doing something that would have very far-reaching effects if we were to pass a measure having such wide powers as the measure before us.
The interesting thing is that in all the arguments put forward there has been an assumption, without any supporting evidence -and I repeat "without any supporting evidence"-that there are sound reasons why this practice should be abandoned. There has been no attempt to analyse and dispose of the arguments put forward as to why this practice should be continued.
One of the things, of course, which has been put forward, and which was mentioned by the minister in his remarks, was the fear that has been expressed by the small businessmen across this country who have been, to some extent at least, following this practice, that this would create a further centralization of commercial power in the hands of monopolies. One of the instruments they fear, and one of the devices to which they have referred in their arguments, is that which is known as the loss leader. The minister quoted a definition of a loss leader which had been given, and which I agree does not adequately define the loss leader, as he correctly pointed out. For the reason that we have not had before us an adequate definition of a loss leader, I want to put on the record what I believe is as clear a statement as to what a loss leader really is as I have yet seen. I wish to quote

Combines Investigation Act briefly from an article in the December edition of Cosmopolitan magazine under the heading "When is a bargain not a bargain?":
Not so long ago a retailer advertised dollar bills for sale at ninety-five cents. Nice, crisp greenbacks fresfi from the United States mint. Only one to a customer. No deliveries. No exchanges. No telephone orders. People flocked to the store. You might have been in the crowd yourself, because you certainly can recognize a bargain when you see one. You might also have wondered how dollar bills could be sold for ninety-five cents. Your good sense told you that fools go broke and that philanthropists practise charity strictly after business hours.
That being the case, was there a catch in this curious sale? There was, of course. A very simple catch, as old as this country, but modernized and streamlined for superefficient hoodwinking.
The retailer knew that people would be attracted to his store. He knew that most customers would also buy a lot of the merchandise displayed on counters and shelves. In the prices of these goods were hidden the retailer's handsome profits.
The dollar bill sale, although it happened only once, symbolizes and dramatizes the extremes to which these come-ons go. Retailers offer something -called a "loss leader"-for nothing. They build their bait around national brand products whose value is as familiar to you as the worth of a dollar bill. They advertise these selected, honourable products at a cut price. Then competitors meet that price or slash below it so that they, too, can be regarded by the public as sterling champions of the consumer.
The price cutting on these products goes on and on until it may become possible to buy merchandise at less than the cost of its container. Dazzled by the bargain, very few customers realize that the retailer is no more cutting prices than the magician on the TV screen is sawing a woman in half right before your eyes. What the retailer is doing is juggling prices.
Then I should like to quote from that same article the words of a great supporter of those ideas which most of us think contribute greatly to the general welfare of the people. I refer to Mr. Justice Brandeis.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think that was quoted previously this afternoon.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps it was, but I prefer to quote part of it in the context of what I have to say. I am not quoting the whole of it, but he says:
Shall we, under the guise of protecting competition, further foster monopoly by creating immunity for the price-cutters?
That, Mr. Speaker, I think is a question that should be answered effectively in the minds of every one of us before we are prepared to support a measure of this kind. We have sought to put before this house arguments that are directly related to this extremely important subject. I submit that no argument that has yet been presented from this side of the house has been directed to anything but the consideration of this subject. It is by all means the small purchaser, dealing with either the small or large store, who must be considered by the members of this

house in passing legislation. Starting from that premise, however, we should not too lightly disturb a long-established commercial system whose whole existence is dependent upon the satisfaction of that small purchaser.
Why are these stores located all over this country today? Why are these small stores spreading into every community, that they have almost become part of the home life of our people? They are there because the people of this country are supporting them. If the people did not believe in the system that has been in practise they had other places to go. They have shown their support of the large store through their mail order business, and when they visited the larger cities. The larger stores had no reason to complain about lack of business, but under this system the small stores have been able to give that kind of service which means so much to all our people. Let us not destroy all the drug stores across this country with the suggestion this is the device by which they make so much money that all they can do is go ahead and put on fancy fronts, gilt and glitter instead of giving efficiency; that is what the minister said. If the members of this house think that, then they put a very low estimate upon the judgment of the people of this country.
Think of what happens in so many cities, towns and villages. The drug store is no further away from the home than the telephone. Most people who have a telephone can call a drug store and have the things they want delivered. They not only get what they want; they get something they know is going to be good. They get something that is produced by a manufacturer whose name has been before them as the manufacturer of quality articles. They know their families are going to be safe when that particular article is used. That is a consideration which should not be overlooked when we have presented to us such strong arguments on behalf of these small stores which are giving service to our people, and which are so much a part of the life of our people that even in difficult days they carried thousands of dollars in debts on their books rather than refuse goods to customers.
These merchants have played their part in the life of this country, and I believe the people of this country know that. I think they want these merchants to be able to continue to give service. Competition has not been disposed of. There is still competition between manufacturers, and there is competition in service between the stores themselves. Surely this government is not putting before us the suggestion that they are turning the clock back more than one hundred years to the one historic doctrine the Whig

party ever had, the old Manchester doctrine of complete and unrestrained freedom of commerce. I cannot believe it. They certainly have never indicated their support of that belief in recent years. It should be remembered that the doctrine which can best be described as that of "the devil take the hindmost" is pure competition. If this argument is being based on pure competition, then I suggest that the history of all the agony that followed the acceptance of that principle be recalled when we are considering something that has to do with the method which recognizes that there has to be some balance between completely unrestrained competition and severely restricted competition.
What we want is competition under the rule of reason. We want competition which is in the interests of the people. It is within the powers of the government to do something about that matter. Other governments have done so. Because their commercial methods are so similar to ours, it is not inappropriate to recall-as has been recalled by other hon. members, including the minister-that forty-five of the forty-eight states in the United States have fair trade laws under which agreements of this kind, where they are not against the public interest, are approved and validated.
In this country an effort was made to introduce an act of that kind. It was a Conservative government that introduced a kind of law which I gather the C.C.F. party now believes in. That was a measure known as the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will remember that measure quite well because, as I recall it, he was counsel in the case that followed. I think that is correct, is it not, Mr. Prime Minister?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: That was an act which followed this very practice. Section 14 of that act would have dealt with price and production agreements, and that act would have followed the general practice followed in forty-five of the forty-eight states in the United States. The minister has compared prices in the small states with prices in the adjoining states. What is interesting is that the forty-five states are showing no apparent reluctance to carry it along, and there has been no strong evidence that the consumers in those states are not happy about it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps the minister has further evidence on the subject. When I said "the small states", I was referring to Maryland, which he mentioned as adjoining the capital area.
Combines Investigation Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Would the hon. gentleman include Texas as a small state?


George Alexander Drew: No. Texas is a large state. I was referring particularly to Maryland in relation to the capital state. But as is known by hon. members, section 14 was held to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words the court held that this matter did not come within the general trade and commerce provisions of the British North America Act, and that it did not come within the criminal provisions. I suggest that is a consideration that should be dealt with before this high court of parliament deals with this subject. Parliament should be quite sure that a subject which was regarded as being outside the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, where it was to be dealt with in a positive way, is within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada when it is to be dealt with in a negative way.
I think the amendment, now before the house, namely that this bill be not now read but that it be read some day six months hence, could be regarded as something more than merely a blocking motion. I suggest that it could be regarded as a motion which would give the government an opportunity to examine a number of things that have not yet been examined, if the evidence the government has in its possession has really been placed before the house. I express the opinion that there is a grave question as to whether the bill now before us is within the jurisdiction of this parliament. I should like the Minister of Justice to tell the house what independent opinions he has had as to the validity of this measure. I know that practice has been followed generally in the case of similar legislation in the past. Independent counsel of the highest standing have expressed their opinion, and that opinion has been presented to this high court of parliament before parliament was called upon to act.
I believe this measure deserves further consideration. We are putting this motion forward in what we believe to be the best interests of the people of Canada. We regard this measure simply as a red herring to distract attention from the failure of the government to act with regard to inflation. No matter what the purpose may be, however, having regard to the close relationship between the consumers of this country and the small stores I urge the government not to disregard the arguments that have been made, and to take further time to consider so important a step affecting the welfare of so many Canadians.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.
2236	HOUSE OF
Combines Investigation Act AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate at this late hour of the session I should like to say first that perhaps I can express an opinion that has not heretofore been voiced, and I want to be very fair in what I say. In the first place, I have had some experience in manufacturing a product which people today cannot buy for five cents, but which is not worth any more than five cents. In the second place, I have had considerable experience in wholesaling, or jobbing as some people call it. By virtue of this experience I did have an interest in the retailer. I will be frank and say my primary interest in him was his ability to pay his bills. I approach this argument from that standpoint on rather short notice, and. also, I must admit, after hearing what I think has been one of the finest debates hon. members have ever listened to in the house, to my knowledge. True, it was heated at times; but none of us can honestly say that we regretted that heat, because it did generate ideas and opinions that to my way of thinking, and I believe to most of us, should be taken into serious consideration.
Let me say first, Mr. Speaker, that I was not a member of the committee that had the privilege, if I may term it such, of reviewing some aspects of the MacQuarrie report. I say now that I have interest in this legislation as a consumer and for other reasons, as I have just stated. I went into the committee room for the purpose of hearing what was going on. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I regret having to say this, but never before in my experience here-and I can also speak for hon. members who have served in this house much longer than I-was a committee engineered-and I use the term "engineered" advisedly-as this one was. They could have threshed old straw, but they were not even permitted to do that.
I have said to my friends that if I were to make up my own mind on this problem I would want to have an expression of opinion from those much more qualified than I am; and I was not prepared to adopt the ideas expressed by any member of that committee, nor will I be prepared to make up my mind and come to a sane conclusion on the merits of this proposed legislation, in view of my experience, without having before me the evidence of those most concerned. That would include the manufacturer, the jobber, the retailer and the consumer. When I found
TMr. Drew.]

to my amazement, and I think to the amazement of this country, that this committee were in such a terrific hurry that they would not permit representations by the retailers who were so vitally concerned, I wondered, as did these people and those friends of each one of us in this house, what they would think.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that the committee room was not big enough to accommodate representation from the ordinary consumer from every province of this country so they could watch what went on in the committee. It certainly would have been an eye-opener to each and every one of them. I hope-and I think I share the opinion of many in this house-that never again will a committee be set up that will be bridled as this one was. It might never have been set up, because it served no purpose except to express to the people of this country the conclusion that this government was determined to go through with the proposed legislation which, they tried to give the impression to the public, was going to benefit them.
That opinion has been shattered so far as the public is concerned, and the opinion of the government has been shattered, as we all know, by the last five by-elections, but the point I make is this. The committee was not permitted to hear evidence which was so vital to everyone. There is no one in this country more entitled to hear what may be said for or against price maintenance than the people vitally concerned. When I see a big company like Eaton's giving their stamp of approval to this type of legislation it makes me wonder-and I represent 45,000 or more people who I think share my convictions-what can be behind it. Mind you, I would not be taking up the time of the house if I thought for one moment that any member of this government had the slightest idea that this legislation would reduce the cost of living. We are all concerned about the cost of living, but I defy any member of the government to stand up tonight or any other time and say that this proposed legislation is going to reduce the cost of living. Not so long ago the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stood up in this chamber and said- I do not propose to quote his words in detail -that this legislation would have little if any effect on the cost of living. When I see big business stepping into the picture and expressing their well-conceived ideas to the committee I begin to wonder as a common man just what it means.
I should like to give an illustration in order to substantiate what I have been saying. Some people in the house may not

like what I am going to say, and some people in industry may not like it, but 1 do not care. I feel that the moment you take on the responsibility of being a member of the House of Commons you expose yourself to the bar of public opinion and you must be fair to your people regardless of whom you might hurt. That has been my attitude in the past and it will continue to be my attitude as long as 1 am in this house.
I am going to recite to you an experience I had with big business some twenty years ago when I was engaged in the jobbing business, mainly of tobacco. At that time we had at the head of the Imperial Tobacco Company a man who conceived the idea that he was going to have a monopoly in the tobacco business. I want to be fair and say that his successors did not share his views. I know that the present president of the Imperial Tobacco Company certainly does not have the same ideas that man expressed and intended to put into effect. They started a price war because they were the largest unit in the tobacco manufacturing industry in Canada. They also had some jobbing outlets in the various provinces. This particular president had the idea that they were going to get it all. At that time we had a margin of about 11 per cent on gross turnover. Let me be frank and say that was more or less by agreement between the jobbers and manufacturers. In addition to having jobbers in the various provinces this company had the United cigar stores as their retail outlets.
In order to have an almost complete monopoly in Canada they decided to cut prices and put the jobbers out of business. There is no denying that fact. They had practically control of the tobacco industry, and they had control by that time of the cigar manufacturing industry. There is no denying that, and I think some hon. members on the other side will agree. This particular individual decided that he wanted to control the tobacco industry from the production angle, and they decided to cut prices through their jobbers.
Every individual in business is entitled to a fair profit, but no more. I hold no brief for certain retailers who have been getting exorbitant profits. I think there are people in the retail business today who are not good merchandisers. I can say that from experience. Whether the retailers like it or not, I am going to say that there are some retailers in this country who enjoy a higher margin of profit than they should get or could get by with if they were smarter merchandisers.
94699-142J
Combines Investigation Act
In order to get control-I think this has to do with the principle of this particular bill -this company decided to give discounts through their wholesale outlets. Then they made the suggestion that they would be interested in buying out other wholesalers who were their competitors. You and I- I am speaking to the members of the house- believe in good sound competition; we do not believe in monopolies or cartels. I am going to relate what happens when some of these needed restrictions are released. They did not succeed in buying out many jobbers. The point I am trying to make is that if either a government or business pursues a policy whereby any individual or corporation can by means of an act of parliament or legislation of any other sort become a monopoly, or conduct their business in such a manner that there is really no competition, that is not good for any type of business nor is it good ultimately for the consumer. If a large corporation, such as Eaton's, want to get rid of a well-known brand, if they have little industries of their own making that particular product they will undersell the nationally-known brand for no other purpose than to enhance the sale of their own product with the ultimate object of putting out of business the little independent manufacturer producing the goods which were originally sold to all retailers. Let there be no mistake about that.
We must be on our guard today. I appreciate the views that have been expressed by hon. members on the other side, but we must be on our guard against any individual or corporation which is not just looking forward to tomorrow but to fifteen, twenty-five, or fifty years from tomorrow. The basis of our business system today is competition. I think everyone will agree that competition and the product itself are what govern the price.
I have something to say which I am sure will be of interest to hon. members, in view of the fact that the T. Eaton Company made certain representations to the committee on this proposed legislation. At about five o'clock yesterday or today, they withdrew from the Canadian retail federation. Members of the committee know what stand the retail federation took with respect to this matter.


An hon. Member:: Go on, "Murph", Christmas is coming.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I know it, and I am taking a train tonight. However, if you want to tantalize me I will go on for my full forty minutes.


Mr. Riley:: Are you tantalizable?

Combines Investigation Act


Joseph Warner Murphy: Another Irishman could
tantalize me. That is right. You were very kind to me the other day so I should not tantalize the other part of Ireland.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Or this house.


Joseph Warner Murphy: There is one other aspect on which I think there will not be any dispute by any hon. member of the house. We all live in cities or municipalities where in all probability there are chain stores. It may be the A & P, Loblaws or Dominion Stores. I am going to put on the record tonight something which I regret having to place there. We all know that the number of items under price maintenance in grocery stores is small compared with the number in other retail outlets. In my experience I have never found a big chain outlet that has built its own store. They come into a town or city and rent store space or have a store built to their specifications which they rent. I come from Sarnia, and we have Loblaws, Dominion Stores and the A & P. We all know the size of the chain stores in our various cities. There is an A & P store on the main street of the city of Sarnia. I have no idea what their annual turnover is, but they pay to the municipality the insignificant-I was going to use a word which might not be parliamentary-sum of $460 per year in taxes.


John Lambert Gibson: What is the matter with the assessment?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am interrupted now by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). I wish to heaven he would get some constituency that would be easier to pronounce.


John Lambert Gibson: I am simple, though.


Joseph Warner Murphy: You had better run in Ottawa. I can pronounce Ottawa very easily. So many of us forget that after all is said and done these chain store operators do not pull their load. While some people may say it is the fault of the municipal assessment, I think you will find that situation pretty general throughout the country. Then we have a large Dominion store market. It is on a splendid location and is about 80 feet wide by 125 feet deep. I think hon. members will agree it is doing more business than fifteen, twenty or possibly thirty independent good retailers in the same business. It pays a little over $700 a year to the municipality. The point I want to suggest for consideration of the house with respect to chain stores and independent retailers is that in my locality, and I think it applies to all, it is certainly not the chain store operator who is on the city council or board of education, or is a member of a service club or leads community chest drives. You will find it is the independent retailer, regardless of what business


he may be in, who is the leader in his community. Let us give that situation very serious consideration.
I have always believed that every individual has a moral right to enter into a social, business or legal agreement with his neighbour provided such agreements do not infringe on the rights of a third party. I would hate to see the day in this country when I could not make an agreement with anyone with whom I deal provided it did not do any injustice to a third party. I have the idea that some people have the opinion that this legislation is going to outlaw these agreements. I do not think it will, and I do not believe the business people think it will. I am satisfied from the hundreds of telegrams and letters received by members of the House of Commons that the consumer will not think for one moment that it will.
I share the opinion of the consumers of this country that this legislation is nothing but a hoax, an idea of the present government to give the people the impression that this is one way of curbing the cost of living.


An hon. Member:: It is almost train time.


Joseph Warner Murphy: There is certainly one way of curbing the high cost of living, and that is for the government to remove the excessive taxes imposed on the wage earners of Canada. There is no occasion for us to have a surplus of some $605 million for the first seven months of this year when it was not budgeted for. The point is that if we are going to budget for payment of the national debt, the budget should say so when it is brought down. Let us not go for eight, nine or ten months and then say we have a surplus which can be used to pay the national debt.


John Lambert Gibson: On a point of order, how can the hon. member make these remarks relevant to the question of combines?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member might address himself more directly to the principle of the bill.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni gets up for the fun of it. He is trying to become a good Liberal and he objects every time I get up to speak.


Donald Ferguson Brown: You mean he is a good Liberal.


Joseph Warner Murphy: This legislation is proposed in the hope of reducing the cost of living. I say the government should reduce the cost of living by reducing taxes. That would be the effective way. No one in business or even out of business-


An hon. Member:: 8.31.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What time does the train go?


Joseph Warner Murphy: -objects to honest competition, and I think we all agree that piracy in business went out of style a long time ago. There was a time in the retail business when probably they did get higher margins than they do today. I think that competition and the quality of a product determine pretty well what a consumer is going to be obliged to pay.
In common with all consumers, I am concerned about what we have to pay for what we have to buy. I believe that a reasonable and rational amount of resale price maintenance is not only a good thing for all concerned-and I am referring to the consumer -but it is definitely a good thing to ward off extensive price cutting, with all its attendant ills. When yesterday I heard the chairman of the committee refer to the prices of some particular products, the thought occurred to me that when a manufacturer produces a product he is also determined to get it to the consumer level and, to assure its resale, he must continue its quality. I believe that, in all fairness, the manufacturer is entitled to suggest a retail price for his product.
I am one who has been in business and who holds the view that if you have a good product, then it is essential that it must be advertised. There are some who have the idea that resale price maintenance is improper. I disagree with them. Some say it is wrong, but the mere fact that they make that statement does not make it wrong, especially when there are .people who are ready to demonstrate that it is not necessarily so. Unfortunately in the committee which was set up those people were not afforded the opportunity that could have been provided for them to make a decision.
I have always felt, from the standpoint of the retailers, that no one in a successful business can offer his product to the public on a hit and miss price basis. True, there are different levels of overhead expense, and those various levels determine the price at which the product must be sold. I should like to refer to what has happened in the last few years in the grocery trade, where to a considerable extent they deal in tobacco. Just before the dinner recess I heard of an illustration in which the man's turnover on tobacco was 30 per cent. The margin to the retailer on that commodity today is only about 11-7 per cent. If there should be a price war- and some might be inclined to favour a price war in view of the present high prices paid for cigarettes-the margin would be even lower. The high price of cigarettes,
Combines Investigation Act of course, is due to the policy of the government, and the injury affects not only the consumer but the independent retailer.
I am sure no one will disagree when I say that 11-7 per cent is a very small margin for any retailer. When I hear of some businesses in which the turnover is about 30 per cent in tobacco lines I sometimes wonder how they manage to carry on without having to use the red ink.
It seems to me this legislation, which the government now deems so very important, could have been brought down years ago and not at this late hour in the session. It is nothing but a smoke screen. I have no hesitation in saying that this is being done by the government to cover up its inability to produce legislation to deal with the high cost of living.
I should like to place on the record, though it may have been done before, a statement by Mr. Justice Louis Brandeis, when he said:
The Sherman law seeks to protect men in the right freely to compete, and to prevent practices which must result in compressing competition. It seeks to preserve to the individual both the opportunity and the incentive to create. It seeks to encourage individual effort. The right of an individual manufacturer in a competitive business to market his goods in his own way-by fixing, if he desires, the selling price to the consumer-is in entire harmony' with the underlying principle of the Sherman law.
And it was John Ruskin who said:
It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little.
And the people should remember this:
When you pay too much, you lose a little money -that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot-it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run. And if you do that, you will have enough to pay for something better.
Few people in Canada know the difference between vertical price cutting by a manufacturer to protect his brand name and goodwill and horizontal price agreements between manufacturers. Mr. Justice Holmes said:
I cannot believe that in the long run the public will profit by this court permitting knaves to cut reasonable prices for some ulterior purpose of their own, and thus to impair, if not to destroy, the production and sale of articles which it is assumed to be desirable that the public should be able to get.
In conclusion I should like to make just one further statement, and I make it on behalf of the retailers and consumers not only in my own area but in many other areas of Canada where there are unemployed. This is one factor which has not been discussed to any extent in the house. I refer to the service

Combines Investigation Act given by independent retailers to the consuming public. Today when we see unemployment, not only in western Ontario, including Sarnia and Windsor-


Donald Ferguson Brown: Speak for Sarnia.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I am speaking for Windsor, too. Your trouble at the Ford motor plant is creating unemployment not only in Sarnia but throughout the province of Ontario. It is the independent retailer who today will be obliged to give credit to the unemployed in these various places in order that, at this Christmas season, they may have a bite to eat.


Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, after listening with close attention to the very able address of the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy), I feel that perhaps I can confine my remarks to ten or fifteen minutes.
It was not my privilege to serve as a member of the committee on resale price maintenance, but I did take the opportunity of attending a number of the sittings and listening to the discussions, as I felt this legislation was of great importance. I can assure the house I found them most interesting indeed.
There has been a desire on the part of hon. members who have taken part in the debate to discuss the matter seriously, and I believe that thus far the debate has been conducted along that line. It is true that there have been sharp clashes reflecting different points of view, but that is to be expected when we are dealing with legislation as important as this.
After listening carefully to a number of discussions in the committee on resale price maintenance I must admit I was somewhat puzzled as to the reason for bringing this legislation before the house now, without having further evidence to justify its support. I do feel that had the matter been given greater consideration following the report of the MacQuarrie committee, which I believe was based principally on theory and not on fact, the government would have refrained from taking what I consider such a drastic step. At the beginning everyone realized that this measure was undertaken by the government in good faith. Most of us believed it was an attempt to do something about the high cost of living, but since this debate has started that has been disproved. We can all agree that that is not the case. My opinion, sir, on the basis of the debates in the committee, would be that action against this resale price maintenance structure would not be in the interests of the consumer, as the sponsors of the bill would have us believe. Until more evidence is submitted I could not


possibly support the bill before the house. When a measure as important as this, and of such far-reaching consequences, comes before this House of Commons I feel we should have sufficient time to debate and discuss every detail of it.
We were elected from 262 constituencies across the country for the purpose of giving thorough and earnest consideration to every bill that comes before the house. That is our responsibility. I feel that we would be derelict in our duty as members if we did not study this bill very carefully, despite the fact that it is close to Christmas and many of our members would like to catch a train tonight if they could. I should like to be among them. I do feel sincerely that we have to give careful consideration to this bill, because it has such far-reaching implications. Those who are urging the banning of resale price maintenance describe this measure as one which will protect the consumer from high prices, and which will ensure proper competition. We will all concede those are desirable and admirable objectives. We would all like to see that happen. It has become apparent, however, that this matter of resale price maintenance is not as simple as it seemed in the speech from the throne.
When this legislation was announced, the protests that were registered came chiefly from the small retailer across this country. His contention was that the huge retail organizations would undersell him, and would gradually force him from the sale of those lines of goods. As the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) pointed out the other evening, many of our returned soldiers across this country have set up small businesses, and have become established under the present system. I, for one, could not support legislation that might interfere with the success of those enterprises. I feel that powerful retail establishments would be in a position to dictate prices on their own terms. There is not a member in this House of Commons who would want to see a monopoly in any kind of business. I have sufficient confidence in the members of all parties to believe that is so. But we would not want to see business controlled by large corporations of any kind. We have the Combines Investigation Act on the statute books of our country for the purpose of preventing such an occurrence. I feel that the banning of resale price maintenance could not help the situation, but would create the very condition the government and parliament are attempting to avoid.
Every member of this house knows full well that competition is maintained at the

production level, and that any concern about it at the retail level is not warranted. Prices simply cannot be held at exorbitant levels, except under illegal combine, at the manufacturing end. I believe it is not the retail end of sales about which we should be concerned. It seems significant, Mr. Speaker, and this fact was mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon, that the only group which submitted evidence to the parliamentary committee that was 100 per cent in favour of banning resale price maintenance was the group which comprises the huge organizations, and which is now increasing to the point where its members could be well described as giants in industry. This fact alone would indicate to me, and I take it to many members of this house, that we should not plunge into the banning of resale price maintenance without further study of this tremendously important step.
When the manufacturer sets the retail price of his article he knows he is setting that price in competition with other resale price-maintained goods and he is also setting that price in competition with goods not in that category or classification. As was pointed out in the committee, if the government would concentrate on ensuring the rigid enforcement of the law forbidding combines and cartels it would assure unrestricted competition, and I doubt very much if we would have any reason to fear resale price maintenance in the retail field.
' During these long week ends when we Ontario members occasionally go home on Friday night and come back on Sunday evening, we have the opportunity of consulting with our constituents. During the last three or four week ends I have been conducting a sort of one man Gallup poll amongst the people of my constituency on this very matter. I will say that the people of Haldimand county are intelligent people. They study these matters carefully, and I found them fairly well informed about this legislation and the extent of the discussion that had taken place in this house. They are somewhat concerned about one or two matters in connection with this bill. They are concerned as to what the result will be when price maintenance is removed from price-maintained lines. I also found that they want to be able to buy everything they require at any store in the neighbourhood, particularly the little corner store near their residence; that is one thing which is very important to these people. They like to feel they can buy as cheaply in one store as they can in another, and receive what they consider is honest dollar for dollar value. They also want to retain the privilege
Combines Investigation Act of choosing between branded goods and other goods not price-maintained. I strongly urge the government to hold over this legislation for future consideration and study. I feel that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) is one that we should consider seriously because of the implications which this bill might contain.
Sir, if I may be allowed to do so, in support of some of the views I have expressed I should like to give you some references from the press; and I will do this briefly and will obey the rules of the house as far as they relate to quotations from the press across Canada, because I do not believe we should abuse this privilege we have of making some reference occasionally to their opinions on matters of importance, such as an issue like this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Some hon. members might carry on their private arguments outside the chamber.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


A. Earl Catherwood: I should like to make a few references to some of the newspapers that have expressed their views on this matter, and I will refer briefly to some of these quotations. One is from the Peterborough Examiner which the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) knows well.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I did.


A. Earl Catherwood: The headline is "Confusion about Resale Price Maintenance". It states that the government would be wise to postpone action for the present, giving those who oppose and those who favour it more time to state their case. Then it goes on to say there is no reason why the Department of Justice should not increase its vigilance in dealing with price-fixing combines and put into effect laws which are now on the books dealing with loss leaders.
I might also quote from the Globe and Mail of December 14. The headline of the article is "Dangerous Half Measures". It points out the same thing. It says that the dominion government's chief accomplishment in dealing with the resale price maintenance issue has been to bring its own sincerity into question. It introduced the measure with the announced intention of pushing it through the various house stages as soon as possible. As we all know, it was rushed through the committee stage and brought back to the House of Commons. In all these deliberations not even one comma was changed when it was brought

Combines Investigation Act back to the House of Commons, so the committee apparently did not make any suggestions that were worth-while.
Then I should like to refer to a quotation from the London Free Press, which I may say has always taken a neutral attitude in this matter. I will just briefly refer to one or two points. I should like to read it all because it is extremely important; however, I will not do so. I quote:
. . . Now the bill to ban price maintenance is going before the House of Commons in its original form it will almost certainly pass. But it is doubtful if the effect on the cost of living which has quietly continued to rise will be great . . .
That is just one extract from the London Free Press. This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred to an article appearing in a leading financial newspaper. He made reference to the fact that the implementation of this act will work in conjunction with the January sales that will duly take place in the merchandising field. In support of this I could perhaps quote an article from the St. Catharines Standard, which is headlined, "Method in the Madness of Justice Minister in Forcing this Law Through Against Retail Price Maintenance Before the Christmas Adjournment."


Edmund Davie Fulton: "Madness" is right.


A. Earl Catherwood: It goes on to state that it is the practice of all merchandising firms to have their January sales, and the only thing we can say about this that might be creditable to the Minister of Justice is that his planning is certainly very good.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Or bad for the merchant.


A. Earl Catherwood: Or bad for the merchant, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has said. I also want to quote from the Financial Post, and again I will be brief. I will just quote three or four lines of an article in the issue of December 15, in which it is stated:
It was a sorry spectacle last week to see the government applying the parliamentary steamroller to its special committee on resale price maintenance. This week the same tactics were being used in parliament to ram this legislation through before adjournment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think it is in order for the hon. member to read from a newspaper or a document published outside the house and reflecting on the proceedings in the house.


A. Earl Catherwood: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But that was about the last quotation I had to make, sir, from the Financial Post.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just summarize it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Just give the gist of it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


A. Earl Catherwood: I might just refer in concluding to one from the Hamilton Spectator.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is a good paper.


A. Earl Catherwood: I will not read the editorial; I will just comment on it. It begins:
If ever an Ottawa drama turned into a vaudeville ballyhoo it is that parliamentary committee's inquiry into resale price maintenance.
Then it reports this way:	It says things
are so mixed up now that it would almost take a royal commission to straighten them out, and that what started out as a bid to rescue the consumer from a dragon has developed into some excited clouting of an elusive mouse.
With all this supporting evidence we have against the implementation of this bill I urge the government seriously to consider the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I feel .that it is exceedingly important to the people of Canada, and that it is important to us as members of parliament that this amendment be considered very seriously. I know hon. members will not regret taking the action if they support that amendment.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this important subject.


An hon. Member:: Briefly?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, briefly. I feel it is exceedingly important that we, as members of parliament who have the responsibility of representing the people of our constituencies as they think we should, look at this subject in a cool, unbiased and unprejudiced manner. After all, we are about to enact legislation which might indeed have a serious effect on our economy. It is our responsibility as members of parliament to be careful, to glean all the information and evidence we can to guide us intelligently before making that decision. I deplore the tendency which I have observed in this house, instead of appealing to reason, to attempt to appeal to emotion at this important time. I feel that we would be remiss in our responsibility if we allow ourselves to have our attention distracted' from the main point at issue by tactics or methods of that sort. After all, the people of this country have the impression-I hope they are wrong but 'they have this impression -that there is a tendency on the part of the government to jump at conclusions from incomplete evidence,-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: That is only wishful thinking on your part.


John Angus MacLean: -or what is even worse, to have perhaps invalid opinions as to what should be done and attempt to support those opinions by piecemeal evidence which does not show the complete picture. I think all hon. members will agree that any member of parliament who is worthy of the name wishes to see brought into effect legislation which will be of the maximum benefit to the greatest number of people. But there is no indication, or at any rate, no evidence, that this legislation falls within that category. I will therefore most wholeheartedly support the motion which was moved by the bon. member for Kamloops.
I have very little sympathy for hon. members who attempt to shore up a weak argument for any given hypothesis to support their own views and rush some very important legislation through this house in an incomplete way. I know there are many hon. members who wish to see this legislation rushed through, and I know some wish us to give it only a cursory glance, but that is not something of which any hon. member should be proud. After all, we have a responsibility here in this chamber to examine legislation very carefully and try to bring the spotlight on any flaws it may contain. Craftsmen, when they produce some work which is of a very high order, are not ashamed to have it exhibited to public view. They like to have it admired and examined by critics because they know it will stand up to thorough examination; but in this case the reverse seems to be true. I see an indication that the members of the government would like to see this legislation go through very rapidly.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that this very important legislation was not introduced in this house almost on the eve of Christmas by design. I hope it was only mismanagement. I see, too, a very strong tendency on the part of some hon. members to find a scapegoat, someone to blame for the high cost of living. I believe this may have some connection with this legislation. After all, I think many members of this parliament who are not acquainted with the situation have now begun to realize that the cost of living in this country and inflation have become very serious. Now that their craft is almost going over the falls, they are desperately trying to clutch something that may save them. They are looking for a scapegoat, and a very convenient scapegoat they seem to have found. They think they have a scapegoat in the form of the manufacturers and the retail merchants in this country. These latter-day Aarons
Combines Investigation Act are going to pile on the head of this scapegoat the sins of the government, hoping that the merchants and the manufacturers of this country will disappear into the wilderness, like the original scapegoat, and never be seen again. But I am quite convinced that the retailers of this country will not go down without a fight.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What about the consumers?


John Angus MacLean: In their haste to blame the merchants of this country for the high cost of living, which they claim is brought about by resale price maintenance, many members of the house remind me a great deal of a certain character in one of Shakespeare's plays, "The Merchant of Venice". I refer to Shylock. Yesterday afternoon I was struck by the similarity. I had forgotten this, but when I heard the hon. member speak yesterday it brought it back vividly to my mind and I then looked it up. The similarity is very striking. You have Shylock saying in "The Merchant of Venice":
We trifle time; I pray thee, pursue sentence.
That is exactly what I hear hon. members in this house say. Let us get on with this. Let us rush it through; let us not worry about the consequences. But the answer to this-


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Who
said that?


John Angus MacLean: Shylock.


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemoni):: Who
said it?


John Angus MacLean: And you have the reply.


Sarto Fournier: Who
said it?


John Angus MacLean: Shylock.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Name him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The hon. member for Coast-Capilano said it yesterday.


John Angus MacLean: Portia said:
A pound of that same merchant's flesh is thine: The court awards it, and the law doth give it.
Shylock: Most rightful judge!
That is very similar to the situation we have now.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What are you reading from?


Mr. Blair:: You never heard of it.


John Angus MacLean: I think the consequences of this legislation, if it is brought into being, may be very far-reaching. I am not saying that, because I am not justified in saying that. There is no evidence. I am not saying that it is a bad thing.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Hear, hear.

Combines Investigation Act


John Angus MacLean: It is possible that it is a good thing, but if it is-


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Both sides of the fence.


John Angus MacLean: It is not a case
of being on both sides of the fence; it is a case of not knowing what the results will be. We have no evidence to indicate what the results will be. There is great danger-


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Don't be a mugwump.


John Angus MacLean: There is a great danger that if this legislation is brought into existence it will have a disastrous effect on this country. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that the small merchants in this country are a very important part of our economy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: They are also a very important segment of our citizenry. I feel, sir, that if the small businessman and the retailer are put into the position where their existence is in jeopardy it will militate against the well-being of many small communities across this country. I come from a province which is composed almost entirely of small communities, and it has the disadvantage, if you look at it in that way, of being a province where there are no headquarters of large chain organizations. Any profits which are drawn away from my prov-nce by large organizations and chain stores ire gone forever, and the province does not even benefit from taxation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we should be extremely careful before skating on thin ice or plunging in, because there is a great danger that we will destroy a very important segment of our economy.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Do both, skate on thin ice and plunge in.


John Angus MacLean: If you skate on thin ice too long you will plunge in.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: He has skated on it before.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: He has not plunged in yet.


John Angus MacLean: In the province I come from there are many small centres which can barely support one drug store. If legislation of this sort is brought into being it may well be that many of the small businesses will be wiped out.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: By what competition?


John Angus MacLean: By the competition of the mail order houses. They would be wiped out in this way. I see no safeguard against loss leaders.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: There is no competition in a small town.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is, and you know it; there is the competition of the chain store.
Mr.4MacLean (Queens): There is competition in my province.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You are on the wrong track.


John Angus MacLean: What I have been saying is for the most part my own opinion, which may or may not be worth much. But what this house needs is concrete, factual evidence to guide us in making a wise decision on this important subject. I support most heartily the amendment of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), so this house may have an opportunity to peruse the necessary facts and arrive at a valid conclusion as to what course of action the government should take on this very important matter.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware, just as well aware as hon. members on the other side of the house, that this is the week before Christmas. I am also well aware that we are discussing a very important matter.


An hon. Member:: Another one of Tennyson's brooks.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a pity they would not make their speeches on their feet.


An hon. Member:: Get up yourself.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you to maintain order. Mr. Speaker, I should like you to maintain order while I speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I ask hon. members to allow the hon. member to continue with his speech.


William Joseph Browne: I have heard hon. members opposite interrupting speakers on this side of the house, and I cannot understand why we are not allowed to speak on this subject.


An hon. Member:: Sure you are.


William Joseph Browne: I am glad to know we are going to be allowed to speak on a subject so important.


Sarto Fournier: Speak and give us your opinion, too.


William Joseph Browne: I am afraid I shall have to start all over again. I did not think there was so much of the Christmas spirit abroad as there seems to be tonight. These interruptions remind me of the night I was called to the bar-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Joseph Browne: I should like to be permitted to recount this incident. It was twenty-nine years ago. The custom at Gray's

Inn when members were being called to the bar was to have them get up and make a speech, but as you rose to make your speech you were interrupted by the senior members. There was an Irishman there who had previously been called to the Irish bar. He stood there for about ten minutes while he was being interrupted and then finally he said so they could hear him, "Oh, you need not think you are bothering me; I have been practising at the Irish bar and have become used to interruptions from the Irish judges."
Having that incident in mind I am prepared to stand here and listen to the interruptions by hon. members who have spoken already until they are prepared to listen to what I have to say. This subject is either important or it is not important. If it is important, it should be treated with the seriousness it deserves, and anyone who has a contribution to make should be allowed to make it.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) spoke for two hours and a half and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) nearly equalled that record when he spoke for two hours. Other hon. members have gone the full forty minutes. If this subject is so important as to warrant an opening speech of two hours and a half by the Minister of Justice, who served on the committee, are those of us who are just students and who listened to his wise remarks just supposed to sit here and vote without expressing our opinion on the matter at all? Even as bystanders we have some views upon this important matter. I do not know very much about it and I do not intend to make a long speech, but if I am aroused perhaps I might be encouraged to do so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What do you need to arouse you?


Edmund Davie Fulton: A few more of your silly interruptions.


William Joseph Browne: As hon. members know, in the speech from the throne the government expressed its concern about the rising cost of living and said they were doing everything that could be done to alleviate that condition. Special reference was made to the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) which in my opinion had the effect of increasing the cost of living, as I predicted last spring would happen. Then it went on in the next paragraph, without connecting the two although the connection seemed obvious, to say that the government now had in its possession the interim report of the MacQuarrie committee which had been investigating the Combines Investigation Act.
Combines Investigation Act
That committee had been appointed over a year ago and nobody had heard a word from them until the Minister of Justice wrote and asked them for an interim report on resale price maintenance. I do not think we have been told why the Minister of Justice wrote to ask for a report on that particular phase of their investigation. The Combines Investigation Act had been in existence for many years, but it has not been in existence as long as resale price maintenance. I had not heard of anyone making any serious complaint about abuses through resale price maintenance. Therefore it is extraordinary in my opinion that the Minister of Justice should write to the committee and ask for an interim report.
As soon as the report was tabled I sent for a copy, and I think I was one of the first members in the house to read it. I was astonished at what a niggardly report it was on that subject. I had seen the report of the committee appointed by the British House of Commons to investigate the same matter. They went into it much more elaborately and had much more documentation for their findings.
This report was prepared in a hurry. As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) pointed out, the chairman of the committee had been away all summer and then had to come back to carry on his duties as president of one of our great universities. The fall term was just beginning, and he had very little time to devote to the preparation of that report. The report had haste written ail over it. When the minister is replying to the speeches that have been made from this side of the house I should like him to explain why he wrote to the committee and asked for an interim report on resale price maintenance.
I think I can say without qualification that yesterday the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Beaudry) delivered the best speech I have ever heard in the House of Commons. I know it was unpalatable to most hon. members on the other side, because he did not receive one handclap or one bit of applause when he sat down. Yet it was logical, it was coherent and it was, I would say, very compelling. We had to listen to him. His arguments were sound, and I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) is going to have a hard job to answer the arguments put forward by the hon. member for St. James. In the course of his remarks he recommended that every member of the house should read the proceedings of the committee. I have them here, and there are 872 pages. I would be willing to bet all the money I have in my

Combines Investigation Act pocket, which is not very much, that outside of members of the committee no other member of the house has read the complete report of the proceedings. I doubt if any member of the government has read it-


An hon. Member:: You win.


William Joseph Browne: -yet members are prepared to vote on this legislation without having read the evidence, this volume of 872 pages. Who has had a chance to study it? Has any analysis been published for the benefit of the public so their reaction can be ascertained? Let the members who are silent over there interrupt now and tell me how many have read it. Has the hon. member for Sa-int John-Albert (Mr. Riley) read it? No. I could go right through the whole list of members over there and I am ready to bet that not one of them has read it.


An hon. Member:: Ask the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Abbott).


William Joseph Browne: I know
the Minister of Finance is too busy for anyone to expect him to go into it, and besides he has too able a parliamentary assistant to make it necessary. According to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) the parliamentary assistant has performed such a capable job as chairman of the committee that he can feel the work has been well done. There are 872 pages of evidence and I must confess that while I appreciate the advice of the hon. member for St. James, it has been impossible to read the report. Why? Because there were half a dozen committees sitting at the same time and most of the members of the house were on those committees. There were only twenty-five or thirty members in the house. Everyone else was attending some committee. Therefore the majority of members of the house have not read the evidence. The majority of members on the government side have not read the evidence with respect to this legislation. I say now that hon. members are not in a position to vote one way or the other concerning this subject.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: You are not a judge now.


William Joseph Browne: The hon.
member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) talks in such a peculiar way that I cannot understand what he says.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I say you are not a judge
now.


William Joseph Browne: Oh, yes, I
am here as a judge. I am a judge of what the committee did. Why is the report of the committee brought before us if we are not

to sit upon it in judgment? Theoretically the committee was appointed by the house and given certain duties to perform. According to the hon. member for Eglinton, who has been here for six years and whom I know from personal experience to be a very active member of any committee upon which he sits, he never saw such a travesty of justice as the way that committee performed its duties with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance as chairman and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) sitting by his side. That is the most serious charge I have heard in this house since I have been here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He is always making charges.


Donald Methuen Fleming: All of them well founded,
too.


William Joseph Browne: It has not
been shown that he is incorrect, and we do not need any further evidence than his statement because we know this measure is being forced through the House of Commons at the present time under the greatest possible pressure the government can put upon us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Duress.


William Joseph Browne: Only today
we were informed that the house, which was expected to close some time this week, is going to adjourn over Christmas until the 27th of December, and members are going to be called back then to resume the consideration of legislation that has not been completed. This was a special session called ostensibly for the purpose of dealing with the question of old age pensions. Who is thinking of old age pensions now? That legislation went through without one dissenting voice.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Some of us may qualify before you finish.


William Joseph Browne: The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) may qualify before the session is finished. This session, which was called for the purpose of dealing with old age pensions, is now vitally concerned with resale price maintenance. What I have said so far is only introductory. I have not read the report of the proceedings of the committee any more than any other member. I have not had a chance to do so. I have heard it is a most interesting report. I have heard many criticisms of the McGregor, as he was called last night, the former combines investigation commissioner of whom I had such a high opinion two years ago when he resigned his position because of the treatment he had received. I have heard and read so many criticisms

as to contradictions in his evidence indicating that it was composed largely of opinions and presumptions without being based upon facts that I should certainly like time to read it and form my own conclusions. Am I going to be given that time or not? Are other members going to be given that time?


Mr. Argue:: You might have taken the
forty minutes you are going to speak.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You could have done that
instead of making a speech.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), who is not what we would call the most reticent member of the house and who speaks on many occasions-I am sure if Hansard were referred to it would be found that he talks far oftener than I do-suggests that I refrain from speaking now and study the report. I should like to ask him-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Good idea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Joseph Browne: -and other hon. members who are interrupting and 'saying "hear, hear" how long it would take me to read this volume of 872 pages?


Douglas Charles Abbott: How fast a reader are you?


William Joseph Browne: Was the
committee serious when it sat down to perform its work? Is this report to be consigned to the library, put on a shelf in a dark room and left there to mould for centuries to come, or is it a valuable document that people are supposed to study seriously? Are members of the house supposed to read the evidence taken before one of their committees, or are they supposed to take the recommendation of the committee as presented to the house and have nothing more to say about it? I know what the government's answer is. They say "yes" because the majority of members on all committees are appointed by the government as Liberal representatives. They are Liberals when they sit on those committees, and every committee I have been on has been the same. The majority are Liberals. They bring in a Liberal report and the Liberal government does not even read it. It does not even read the evidence but puts it away and brings in its legislation. That is what is happening with regard to this matter. Is the public getting a square deal with respect to this subject?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Joseph Browne: I say this subject is one-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Next page.
Combines Investigation Act


William Joseph Browne: -that might shake the foundations of Canadian society very seriously, like an earthquake.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is certainly shaking the foundations of the government.


William Joseph Browne: I say to the
Minister of Finance, who is smiling now, that he may well find it will have repercussions upon the government. He does not know, and I do not know if he cares, what the effects of this legislation are going to be. I do not see how he can because I do not think he has had enough time to reflect and give proper study and attention to what is going on. I am just as much concerned as any other member of the public about the increase in the cost of living, and I should like to see measures taken by the government to reduce the cost of living. But, sir, I cannot see that they have found the panacea in the legislation they are introducing here.
Mind you, I will confess that when this subject was first mentioned it seemed to me to be a very attractive thing. Often I would see in the shops Forsyth shirts at $5, right across the country. I would ask myself: Why should a manufacturer tell a retailer that he has to sell that shirt for $5? Why does he have to put a label on it before he sells it to the retailer? Why does he not let the retailer sell at his own price? I felt I should be able to go from one shop to another until I found the shirt at a lower price, and buy it at that price. But a little reflection and the arguments of hon. members on this side of the house have shown me clearly that that is not the right attitude to take in regard to this matter. There is a community of interest between the manufacturer and the retailer. They are in the same business of selling shirts. The manufacturer makes the shirt and sells it to the retailer. He is anxious to have the retailer sell as many of those shirts as possible. That is only common sense, is it not?
Every manufacturer wants to see his goods have a good showing. He wants to see them in the shop windows and wants to see them becoming popular. So he takes a pride in his product. The retailer is just as anxious as the manufacturer to sell as many shirts as possible. And those retailers are not like the persons described by the parliamentary assistant, I think it was, when he said they were gouging profits out of the consumer.
The retailer as you know him and as I know him, as hon. members on the other side of the house know him, and as the ministers know him, is an honest man. We take it for granted that men in business are honest. If they are not honest why is not the Minister

Combines Investigation Act of Justice (Mr. Garson) prosecuting them now for being dishonest? Why is this attack made upon the retailer?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why does he not prosecute the smugglers?


William Joseph Browne: There is a community of interest there. It is a perfectly justifiable position. Many hon. members, especially those coming from the province of Quebec, know that this community of interest between retailers and manufacturers is called a vocational association. It is in vogue in other countries in Europe. It is in vogue in Portugal, especially.


Sarto Fournier: First time I have heard about that.


William Joseph Browne: Then the hon. member's memory is not so good tonight. There is a community of interest there, and it is perfectly logical. I wish to tell you that this is not a new subject by any means. We are dealing with it as if it were new. It has been in effect in England for forty or fifty years. It has been in effect in the United States for a very long time. Forty-five of the forty-eight states are practising it. The Minister of Justice brought us a statement from the three states who had not been practising these fair trade laws, and I think the parliamentary assistant did the same thing. They held them up as objects to be admired. Why, do you not believe in democracy, the greatest good for the greatest number? Are the three states supposed to be the three wise men of the United States? Are they like the three wise men of the east? No, I think we ought to analyse the statement that forty-five of the forty-eight states in the United States practice these fair trade laws.
What I mean to do is go back a little way in my own experience. I happen to be familiar with the business of a small confectionery store operated by my mother for some years. Other hon. members may recall some of the matters about which I am going to speak. They will remember the five cent chocolate bar, the five cent bottle of pop, the ten cent package of cigarettes. Sales were made at these prices, not as a result of written agreements but by implied agreement between the manufacturers and the retailers to sell at these prices. When, during the first world war, prices of ingredients that went into chocolate bars went up, the manufacturers started to make the bars smaller so that they could still be sold at five cents. Then I remember particularly in connection with the five cent cigar there was an understanding between the manufacturer and the retailer that it would be sold at these special


prices. And I suggest it never occurred to one member in the House of Commons that there was anything wrong in what the retailer was doing.
Where is any wrongdoing being discovered now? I have not heard anyone complaining about this resale price maintenance. I think it is largely a matter of imagination.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government's imagination.


William Joseph Browne: Because of government propaganda people are now imagining that the retailer has been gouging profits out of us, the consumers. It has never occurred, at all. The Minister of Justice informed us in advance that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Carter) would speak about the experience of Newfoundland. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), at page 2151 of Hansard, made reference to the report of the royal commission, when he said:
The second example is right here in Canada.
He was giving an example of the effect of resale price maintenance.
The province of Newfoundland, before union, did not enjoy the blessing of resale price maintenance, but when they came into union they got it.
That was one of the blessings we got as a result of confederation.
And as the Newfoundland co-operative brief pointed out, the prices in every line except cars rose immediately when resale price maintenance was applied to Newfoundland and so they had a royal commission on this matter.
That is an absurdity. The parliamentary assistant does not know what he is speaking about. Let me tell you something about that, because I happen to know about it. The premier of Newfoundland in pre-confederation days told the people of Newfoundland that the cost of living would go down 30 per cent after confederation. But instead of the cost of living going down, the cost of living has gone up. He had to have a commission to find out why it went up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They should have paged Doug. Abbott.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The election is over in Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: But we have a by-election coming up.


An hon. Member:: Hire a hall.


An hon. Member:: An honest man.


William Joseph Browne: When the premier was forming the commission he went to a friend and said, "I would like to put you on that royal commission". His friend said,

"Look here, now, Joe, you know you are only fooling the people. It does not make much difference whether rolled oats sell for six cents in St. John's, Newfoundland, and seven cents in Labrador. There is nothing going to come out of it". "Oh", he replied "we have to let the people think we are doing something for them". And so the commission was appointed. And it brought in a report, I believe. Where they put that report, I do not know. We have never been able to get it. It is not in the parliamentary library.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps the same place as the flour-milling report.


William Joseph Browne: No, I do not
think it was as bad as that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Ask the Minister of Justice.


William Joseph Browne: But yesterday the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect, told us that the committee dealing with this subject had before it, among other documents, the report of that royal commission in Newfoundland which dealt with the question of the cost of living. Well, I inquired from the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) and he said no. I phoned the clerk of the committee and he said no, that he thought an extract was read from it, but it was not put before the committee.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We never saw it.


William Joseph Browne: Yesterday when the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was reading from a manuscript in his hand as if it were from the report of the royal commission, I asked him if he was reading from the royal commission's report and he said yes. But obviously he was not. He was reading from a typescript he held in his hand. I do not believe there is a copy of the royal commission's report within these precincts. I have tried to get it.
I have here a letter I received from Mr. C. C. Janes, managing director of the Newfoundland co-operative union, asking me to support resale price maintenance. He outlined this very thing to which reference was made by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, when they referred to the matter of batteries. It is said that the resale price of this article has risen from 60 cents to 80 cents, according to the finding of the royal commission in Newfoundland. In the first place, the landed cost of this battery was 46J cents, that is before confederation, and the selling price was 60 cents. After confederation the landed cost rose to 47 J cents and the retail selling price was 80 cents. It was suggested that
Combines Investigation Act this was due to resale price maintenance. Now, sir, I have not seen the report of the commission and I am not in a position to accept or deny any statements that have been made in this respect. However, I have been associated for a long time with the co-operative movement in Newfoundland, and I know the managing director who has written this letter. He is an official of the government of Newfoundland. I imagine he has picked out this startling piece of evidence.
Yesterday I called the Canadian Tire Corporation and asked them what the prioe of the battery was here. They said it was 84 cents. I asked them whether the price had gone up in the past year, and they said that it had gone up about 15 cents. Everything else is going up; why should not the price of batteries go up as well?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is taxes.


George Harris Hees: That is income taxes and sales taxes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is long sessions of parliament, long speeches and high costs.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Especially long budget speeches and overtaxation.


William Joseph Browne: The Minister of Justice described to us the difference between horizontal price fixing and vertical price fixing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What is the difference?


William Joseph Browne: The difference is that one is illegal. Horizontal price fixing is between the manufacturers. We will say that the manufacturers of flour agree between themselves to keep the price at a certain level. This is contrary to the Combines Investigation Act. As the commissioner pointed out, these manufacturers had committed an offence. Because there was a disagreement between the government and the wartime prices and trade board, these men were not prosecuted for a breach of the Combines Investigation Act. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) understands that.


George Harris Hees: You fellows remember that.


William Joseph Browne: Unfortunately this report was concealed by the government for over twelve months and it was too late to prosecute the offenders. This report was overlooked by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) who is so deeply concerned about the independent retailer today, and especially about that homogeneous person, the consumer. Vertical price fixing, which as I say is quite a legitimate thing, is something which takes place between the manufacturer and the retailer. I submit, and I suggest to the Minister of Justice, that vertical price fixing is a legitimate and a natural development

Combines Investigation Act which has been going on ever since there was any trade. If the government is going to interfere with that, I point out that they are doing something that may have startling effects.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Are you sure?


William Joseph Browne: Yes, I feel sure that it will have serious effects upon our economy. The government intends to prohibit resale price maintenance. It intends to prohibit any arrangement between a manufacturer and a retailer as to the price at which the manufacturer's products shall be sold. This leaves the door open to the loss leader practice. The -loss leader practice is an abuse of trade, and it would have been far better if the Minister of Justice had askqd the MacQuarrie committee to advise the government as to what they should do about this loss leader practice rather than about resale price maintenance.


An hon. Member:: What is a loss leader?


An hon. Member:: A leader of the opposition.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: How many have they lost?


William Joseph Browne: Now, Mr. Speaker, if resale price maintenance is abolished, as the government intends to do, we shall come back to the question of the Forsyth shirt. Tomorrow or the next day, perhaps in- the January sales that have been mentioned, the big departmental stores will advertise Forsyth shirts which formerly cost $5 for $3.98 or $2.98. All the members of the Liberal party can flock in and get their shirts $1.20 or so cheaper than before. The effect will be that the retailer who was doing a legitimate business will not be able to sell any more shirts of that type. I have only mentioned one article. If the practice is as widespread as the Minister of Justice wishes the house to believe, then that performance could be repeated in all the other different lines, and in all the different commodities in the drug business, as well as the hardware business.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Give the next speaker a chance. He is waiting behind the curtain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If you would give this speaker a chance, he could finish his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: 
An hon. Member:: You are absolutely
wrong.


William Joseph Browne: Perhaps the hon. member who interrupted will explain where I am wrong. I am stating what I understand to be correct, and if I am wrong I am open to correction. I shall be only too grateful to the hon. member if he will correct me, because I am sure no member in this house wants to be left in the position of not stating what is right. If such a situation should occur in the city of Montreal or Toronto, is it not going to have a serious effect upon the small retailer who has been selling articles at resale price-maintained prices? I say it is going to have serious effects. No one can tell, not even our wise Minister of Finance who predicted a $20 million-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, $30 million.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What is $10 million to you?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: You did not read his budget speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish the minister would always be as concerned about $10 million.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Don't take so long to think those up. They are better when they are spontaneous.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the hon.
member that his time has expired.


William Joseph Browne: May I make one statement?


Some hon. Members:: No, time.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Let him finish.


Mr. Speaker:: I gave one of the other members two minutes.


William Joseph Browne: The Minister of Justice read a letter from an official of the British drug trade. He apologized that the letter was a little bit out of date. It was dated 1937; it is only fourteen years out of date. They must have done a great deal of research to look up that letter of 1937 in which the -writer said that in England the number of outlets for proprietary medicines and drugs was increasing by about 8,000 to 9,000 a year. They suggested there should be some limitation upon those who sell these proprietary medicines, -and that there should be an -agreement with the manufacturers for the chemists of England, as they are called, to sell them.


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: The Minister of Justice then turned to us and said: Do we want that practice here? I say yes, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be a good practice that chemists or druggists only should be allowed to sell drugs and not the grocery store, the hardware store, the five and ten cent store, the chain store and all the other kinds of stores. Only drug stores should be allowed to sell drugs and medicines.


Mr. Herridge:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for St. John's West mentioned the fact that his fellow member from Newfoundland-I cannot at the moment remember the name of the constituency-yesterday afternoon said he was reading from the report of the royal commission on the cost of living in Newfoundland, 1950. The hon. member for St. John's questioned the word of the hon. member who spoke yesterday afternoon.
I want to tell the house that I have in my hand a copy of chapter 10 of the report of the royal commission on the cost of living in Newfoundland, 1950, which deals with several aspects of distribution costs studied by the commission: (a) prices and resale price maintenance; (b) credit and instalment buying; (c) commission agents. The hon. member who made the statement yesterday afternoon kindly handed me the document. This is the document he read from and he handed it to me before he left, for my information. The hon. member was quite correct when he said he was reading from the report of the royal commission.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I am just as interested in this matter as is the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I have tried to the best of my ability to get this document. I have here a copy of the letter which I wrote-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: -on December 4 to the managing director, Newfoundland Co-operative Union, St. John's Newfoundland, in part as follows:
I have not seen the report of the royal commission on the cost of living. It is not in the library here. I wonder if you would be good enough to send me a copy. I would suggest, too, that even if you cannot send me a copy you should send one to the library of parliament here where it would be available to all the members.
Can an hon. member do any more than that?
Combines Investigation Act


An hon. Member:: Apologize.


An hon. Member:: He said he has it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He has not it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lateness of the hour and the feeling of the members of the house I wonder if Your Honour would agree to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Alphonse Fournier: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No. Go on for five minutes. It is a pleasure to hear you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is only nine o'clock in
Winnipeg.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I was reviewing the course of this session and I noticed that on October 9, when we commenced, the speech from the throne mentioned the fact that legislation would be brought down based on this report of the MacQuarrie committee. On October 15 the Prime Minister, in his remarks to the house as reported at page 41 of Hansard, said:
... I can say that as regards immediate additional measures to curb inflation, while others may develop, the only one we are prepared to submit at this time is the one that will arise out of this report of the combines committee with respect to resale prices.
I do not think that is going to have a very substantial effect on the index of the cost of living . . .
Following that, and much later, the committee was appointed to review the MacQuarrie committee report. Then we had the report of that committee submitted to this house. Finally on Monday, December 17, the bill was brought to our attention; and at that time an endurance contest commenced.


An hon. Member:: And it is still going on.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Having made my railway reservations and cancelled them about three times, I have now lost interest in returning to Winnipeg for Christmas and I am prepared to stay here as long as is necessary.
I have followed with interest the work of the committee of the house on combines legislation. I was named to that committee but was unable to attend it due to already having been named a member of the committee to investigate the railway situation. I therefore had to withdraw from this committee on combines legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it was a great loss to the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have, however, been able to read some of the evidence adduced at the

Combines Investigation Act meetings of that committee, and I have considered the matter of sufficient importance for me to take part at this time in the debate that is now in progress.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Douglas Charles Abbott: One minute to ten.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think everything points to the fact that there is a serious weakness in this legislation. We had presented to this house earlier in this session some pieces of legislation which might be termed good.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: But not the Public Works Act amendment.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Churchill the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Graydon: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) is going to announce the business program for tomorrow.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: You ought to know.


Alphonse Fournier: I thought of consulting my hon. friend. We can go ahead with this bill tomorrow and any other legislation.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 20, 1951